The Secretary of State for Business, Energy And Industrial Strategy v Lord & Ors [2022] EWHC 21 (Ch) (19 January 2022)

The Secretary of State for Business, Energy And Industrial Strategy v Lord & Ors [2022] EWHC 21 (Ch) (19 January 2022)

The court found that Mr Lord, although a director, did not abrogate his duties to the extent alleged. He ensured legal advice was sought and followed, was not involved in the day-to-day management or promotion of the scheme, and there was no evidence he knew or ought to have known of the breaches. The Secretary of State failed to prove unfitness under section 6(1)(b) CDDA.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 21 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR BUSINESS, ENERGY AND INDUSTRIAL STRATEGY; First Defendant: MR NIGEL JONATHAN ROBERT LORD; Second Defendant: MRS VICTORIA ELISABETH GRACE; Third Defendant: MRS BRONWEN BANNER-EVE
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 January 2022
Procedural Posture
Directors Disqualification Application / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Application dismissed as against Mr Lord
Legal Topics
Directors' Disqualification, Collective Investment Schemes, Breach of Statutory Duty, Misrepresentation, Regulatory Compliance
Company Law Insolvency Law Financial Services Regulation Directors' Disqualification Collective Investment Schemes Breach of Statutory Duty Misrepresentation Regulatory Compliance

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR BUSINESS, ENERGY AND INDUSTRIAL STRATEGY

Claimant

MR NIGEL JONATHAN ROBERT LORD

First Defendant

MRS VICTORIA ELISABETH GRACE

Second Defendant

MRS BRONWEN BANNER-EVE

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Directors Disqualification Application / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Lord's conduct as a director rendered him unfit to be concerned in the management of a company under section 6 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986
  2. 2 Whether Mr Lord allowed the company to operate an unauthorised collective investment scheme in breach of FSMA
  3. 3 Whether Mr Lord allowed the company to make misrepresentations to the public

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that Mr Lord, although a director, did not abrogate his duties to the extent alleged. He ensured legal advice was sought and followed, was not involved in the day-to-day management or promotion of the scheme, and there was no evidence he knew or ought to have known of the breaches. The Secretary of State failed to prove unfitness under section 6(1)(b) CDDA.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed as against Mr Lord

Orders

  • No disqualification order made against Mr Lord
  • No order as to costs against Mr Lord