The Secretary of State for Business And Trade v Stan [2026] EWHC 1164 (Ch) (18 May 2026)

The Secretary of State for Business And Trade v Stan [2026] EWHC 1164 (Ch) (18 May 2026)

The defendant's conduct in overstating the company's turnover and procuring a Bounce-Back Loan in excess of entitlement, though not dishonest or reckless, was a serious failure to take care and fell below the standards required of company directors. This rendered him unfit to be concerned in the management of a company, justifying a four-year disqualification and a compensation order for the loss caused.

Citation
[2026] EWHC 1164 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: The Secretary of State for Business and Trade; Defendant: Aurel Stan
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 May 2026
Procedural Posture
Directors Disqualification and Compensation Order / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Disqualification order for four years and compensation order granted against the defendant.
Legal Topics
Directors' Disqualification, Bounce Back Loan Scheme, Misstatement of Turnover, Compensation Orders, Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986
Insolvency Law Company Law Directors' Disqualification Bounce Back Loan Scheme Misstatement of Turnover Compensation Orders Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Secretary of State for Business and Trade

Claimant

Aurel Stan

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Directors Disqualification and Compensation Order / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's conduct as director rendered him unfit to be concerned in the management of a company under s.6 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986
  2. 2 What period of disqualification is appropriate given the nature of the misconduct
  3. 3 Whether a compensation order should be made against the defendant for losses caused to a creditor

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant's conduct in overstating the company's turnover and procuring a Bounce-Back Loan in excess of entitlement, though not dishonest or reckless, was a serious failure to take care and fell below the standards required of company directors. This rendered him unfit to be concerned in the management of a company, justifying a four-year disqualification and a compensation order for the loss caused.

Court Disposition

Disqualification order for four years and compensation order granted against the defendant.

Orders

  • The defendant is disqualified from acting as a director or being concerned in the management of a company for four years.
  • The defendant is ordered to pay compensation of £19,752 plus interest at 2.5% per annum from 29 November 2022.