Summary

In seeking an order that the appellant should be disqualified from acting as a company director, the secretary of state had been entitled to rely on his failure to cooperate with the Financial Services Authority and the Official Receiver.

Facts

The appellant (G) appealed against an order disqualifying him from acting as a company director. The respondent secretary of state had alleged, among other things, that G had failed to co-operate with inquiries made by the Financial Services Authority and that he had failed to co-operate with the Official Receiver. G argued that the secretary of state lacked jurisdiction to make complaints on behalf of the FSA, and that non-cooperation with the Official Receiver was a legally irrelevant allegation, since the relevant company had not become insolvent.

Held

Non-cooperation with regulators could amount to a ground of unfitness to be a company director. The secretary of state had therefore been entitled to rely on G's failure to cooperate with the FSA. Further, the secretary of state had been entitled to rely on G's failure to cooperate with the Official Receiver, even though the company had not become insolvent, Bath Glass Ltd, Re (1988) 4 BCC 130 Ch D (Companies Ct), Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Reynard (2002) EWCA Civ 497, (2002) BCC 813 and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Bairstow (2003) EWCA Civ 321, (2004) Ch 1 considered.

Appeal dismissed