- Disqualification undertakings and second chances—the correct approach to sections 8A and 17 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 (Ahmed v Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Industrial Strategy)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- What did the court decide?
- The first judge’s error
- ‘Special circumstances’
- Case details
Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The court held that a disqualified director’s rehabilitation from drug and alcohol addiction did not amount to ‘special circumstances’ for the purposes of the court’s discretion to discharge a disqualification undertaking under section 8A of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 (CDDA 1986). The decision provides important guidance on the relationship between CDDA 1986, ss 8A and 17, the latter under which a disqualified director can obtain permission to act. Written by Benjamin Archer, barrister, and Carola Binney, pupil barrister, at 4 New Square.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial