The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy v Christopher Huw Douglas Mallet & Anor

The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy v Christopher Huw Douglas Mallet & Anor

The trial judge was entitled to find dishonesty based on the evidence and admissions of deliberate conduct, even without express use of the word 'dishonesty' in the pleadings. The periods of disqualification imposed were not excessive given the seriousness, lack of mitigation, and benefit to the directors. There was no procedural unfairness and no basis for appellate interference.

Parties
Claimant: Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy; First Defendant: Christopher Huw Douglas Mallet; Second Defendant: Marina Yolanda Orr
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 July 2021
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Director Disqualification, VAT Under Declaration, Dishonesty, Procedural Fairness, Appeal Standards
Company Law Insolvency Tax Law Director Disqualification VAT Under Declaration Dishonesty Procedural Fairness Appeal Standards

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy

Claimant

Christopher Huw Douglas Mallet

First Defendant

Marina Yolanda Orr

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in making findings of dishonesty against the appellants without express pleading
  2. 2 Whether the periods of disqualification imposed were excessive
  3. 3 Whether procedural unfairness arose from absence of express dishonesty allegation

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge was entitled to find dishonesty based on the evidence and admissions of deliberate conduct, even without express use of the word 'dishonesty' in the pleadings. The periods of disqualification imposed were not excessive given the seriousness, lack of mitigation, and benefit to the directors. There was no procedural unfairness and no basis for appellate interference.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appellants' appeal against periods of disqualification dismissed
  • Costs appeal dismissed