The Secretary of State for Business Innovation And Skills v Cork [2012] EWHC 3284 (Ch) (10 October 2012)

The Secretary of State for Business Innovation And Skills v Cork [2012] EWHC 3284 (Ch) (10 October 2012)

Mr Cork's conduct in permitting Landmark Publishing Limited to trade while insolvent, relying on speculative investment without proper inquiry or monitoring, and failing to protect creditors' interests constitutes unfit conduct under section 6 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986. His limited involvement and reliance on Mr Porter do not excuse his failure to discharge director duties.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 3284 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills; Defendant: Raymond Michael Cork
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 October 2012
Procedural Posture
Director's Disqualification Application / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Disqualification order granted against Mr Cork under section 6 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986.
Legal Topics
Director's Disqualification, Insolvent Trading, Duties of Directors, Unfit Conduct
Company Law Insolvency Law Director's Disqualification Insolvent Trading Duties of Directors Unfit Conduct

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills

Claimant

Raymond Michael Cork

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Director's Disqualification Application / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Cork's conduct as director of Landmark Publishing Limited makes him unfit to be concerned in the management of a company under section 6 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Cork's conduct in permitting Landmark Publishing Limited to trade while insolvent, relying on speculative investment without proper inquiry or monitoring, and failing to protect creditors' interests constitutes unfit conduct under section 6 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986. His limited involvement and reliance on Mr Porter do not excuse his failure to discharge director duties.

Court Disposition

Disqualification order granted against Mr Cork under section 6 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986.

Orders

  • Mr Cork is disqualified from acting as a director for a specified period (term not stated in judgment).