Secretary of State for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform v Sullman & Anor

Secretary of State for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform v Sullman & Anor

Mr Sullman's conduct was culpable and demonstrated unfitness to be concerned in the management of a company due to misrepresentation to customers and underwriters, adoption of artificial devices to circumvent regulatory restrictions, failure to disclose material risks and personal benefits to investors, and lack of commercial probity.

Parties
Claimant: The Secretary of State for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform; First Defendant: Anthony Frederick Sullman; Second Defendant: Colin David Poole
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 December 2008
Procedural Posture
Disqualification Proceedings / Judgment
Outcome
Culpable conduct established; provisional order for disqualification under section 8 CDDA 1986.
Legal Topics
Director Disqualification, Misrepresentation, Commercial Probity, Professional Conduct, Disclosure Obligations, Referral Fees, IPO Disclosure
Company Law Insurance Law Financial Regulation Director Disqualification Misrepresentation Commercial Probity Professional Conduct Disclosure Obligations +2 more

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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Secretary of State for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform

Claimant

Anthony Frederick Sullman

First Defendant

Colin David Poole

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Disqualification Proceedings / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Sullman's conduct as director of Claims Direct PLC and Claims Incorporated PLC renders him unfit to be concerned in the management of a company under section 8 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986
  2. 2 Whether misrepresentations to customers, underwriters, and investors constitute misconduct
  3. 3 Whether artificial arrangements to circumvent regulatory restrictions amount to unfit conduct

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Sullman's conduct was culpable and demonstrated unfitness to be concerned in the management of a company due to misrepresentation to customers and underwriters, adoption of artificial devices to circumvent regulatory restrictions, failure to disclose material risks and personal benefits to investors, and lack of commercial probity.

Court Disposition

Culpable conduct established; provisional order for disqualification under section 8 CDDA 1986.

Orders

  • Adjournment for submissions on period of disqualification, costs, and permission to appeal.
  • Time for service of any appellant’s notice not to run until conclusion of adjourned hearing.