PNC Telecom Plc v Thomas & Ors

PNC Telecom Plc v Thomas & Ors

Mr. Thomas was in breach of fiduciary duty by approving change of control and compensation provisions in a situation of conflict of interest, which caused loss to the company. He acted honestly but not reasonably, so the court had no jurisdiction to relieve him from liability under s.727 Companies Act 1985. The claims in fraud and for secret profits failed, but the company is entitled to equitable compensation for the payments made as a result of the breach.

Parties
Claimant: PNC Telecom PLC; Defendant: Geremy Howard Prance Thomas; Defendant: Nigel Etherington; Defendant: Jeffrey Pack
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 August 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Liability for breach of fiduciary duty established; relief under s.727 Companies Act 1985 refused; company entitled to equitable compensation; other claims dismissed.
Legal Topics
Directors' Duties, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Relief Under Companies Act, Board Meetings, Conflict of Interest, Equitable Compensation
Company Law Fiduciary Duties Directors' Duties Breach of Fiduciary Duty Relief Under Companies Act Board Meetings Conflict of Interest Equitable Compensation

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PNC Telecom PLC

Claimant

Geremy Howard Prance Thomas

Defendant

Nigel Etherington

Defendant

Jeffrey Pack

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr. Thomas breached fiduciary duties as a director
  2. 2 Whether Mr. Thomas was liable for authorising payments not in the company's interest
  3. 3 Whether Mr. Thomas should be relieved from liability under s.727 Companies Act 1985

Ratio Decidendi

Mr. Thomas was in breach of fiduciary duty by approving change of control and compensation provisions in a situation of conflict of interest, which caused loss to the company. He acted honestly but not reasonably, so the court had no jurisdiction to relieve him from liability under s.727 Companies Act 1985. The claims in fraud and for secret profits failed, but the company is entitled to equitable compensation for the payments made as a result of the breach.

Court Disposition

Liability for breach of fiduciary duty established; relief under s.727 Companies Act 1985 refused; company entitled to equitable compensation; other claims dismissed.