The Secretary of State for Business and Trade v Bozhidar Genov

The Secretary of State for Business and Trade v Bozhidar Genov

Mr Genov knowingly overstated the company's turnover in the Bounce Back Loan application, causing the company to obtain a loan far in excess of its entitlement. This conduct fell below the standards of probity and competence required of company directors, rendering him unfit to be concerned in the management of a company. The misconduct directly caused loss to the creditor, justifying both a nine-year disqualification order and a compensation order for the excess sum obtained.

Parties
Claimant: The Secretary of State for Business and Trade; Defendant: Bozhidar Genov
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 January 2025
Procedural Posture
Director Disqualification and Compensation Order / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed
Legal Topics
Director Disqualification, Bounce Back Loan Scheme, Misrepresentation, Compensation Order
Company Law Insolvency Law Director Disqualification Bounce Back Loan Scheme Misrepresentation Compensation Order

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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Secretary of State for Business and Trade

Claimant

Bozhidar Genov

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Director Disqualification and Compensation Order / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Genov's conduct in overstating company turnover and obtaining a larger Bounce Back Loan renders him unfit to be a company director under section 6 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986
  2. 2 Whether a compensation order should be made under section 15A of the CDDA for loss caused to creditors

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Genov knowingly overstated the company's turnover in the Bounce Back Loan application, causing the company to obtain a loan far in excess of its entitlement. This conduct fell below the standards of probity and competence required of company directors, rendering him unfit to be concerned in the management of a company. The misconduct directly caused loss to the creditor, justifying both a nine-year disqualification order and a compensation order for the excess sum obtained.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed

Orders

  • Disqualification order against Mr Genov for nine years under section 6 CDDA
  • Compensation order against Mr Genov for £33,726 plus interest at 2.5% from the date the loan was obtained