135:) and section 238 (transactions at an undervalue) against Mr Hearsey. Mr Hearsey had been the sole beneficial shareholder and controlling director of DGA. DGA had traded successfully in 1991 and 1992, but then its position had worsened. It had gone into liquidation through voluntary winding up proceedings on 24 February 1994. Apparently, in April 1994, there had been a burglary at the office by an unknown person, and all the accounts books had been stolen.
204:. If the company could not afford to pay out £10,000 and was doubtfully solvent so that the expenditure threatened the continued existence of the company, the directors ought to have known the facts and ought at any rate to have postponed the grant of the pension until the financial position of the company was assured."
158:
However, Hearsey's remuneration in following years was objectionable. There was a lack of clear evidence about
Hearsey's actions. Despite that, if Hearsey had no reliable view on DGA's financial position, it was not responsible to pay himself large sums of money. Alternatively, if Hearsey had had a
217:
by the excessive payments. The test is as I have stated it, namely whether the payment complained of was, in the particular circumstances, grossly negligent and made without a due regard for the finances of the company. Here the judge was perfectly entitled, on the facts which he found, to come to
181:
3 All ER 1016, from which she correctly extracts the proposition that the amount of remuneration awarded to a director is a matter of company management, and that provided there has been a genuine exercise of the company's power to award remuneration, it is not for the court to determine if, or to
185:
13. In the last analysis, it seems clear that the reasonableness or not of the remuneration as a whole is not the decisive factor. The question is whether, in the particular circumstances, the company can afford to pay it, and whether the decision to do so has or has not amounted to
212:
in cases such as this. In other words, it is dangerous to start with the liquidation of the company and then to look back and proceed on an assumption that the liquidation has been caused by the excessive payments. However, it is not necessary to show that the liquidation has been
182:
what extent, the remuneration awarded was reasonable. However, Oliver J went on to recognize that, if the director's remuneration was excessive or unreasonable, it would not avail him to argue that the matter had been decided by the company as a matter of company management.
154:
In 1991 and 1992, because the company had been successful, and Mr
Hearsey had adequately carried out his duties, it could not be said that pay or pension contributions were excessive. That was because there was no significant risk to DGA's creditors.
218:
the conclusion that that test had been satisfied. Notwithstanding Miss Giret's well sustained argument, an appeal would have no reasonable prospect of success. I would dismiss this application accordingly.
192:
159:
reliable view of DGA's finances, paying himself large sums of money would have also been irresponsible, because there had been a substantial risk to DGA's creditors.
177:
279:
111:
case, which held that a director's pay and pension was excessive and grossly negligent, and could be recovered after the company went insolvent.
294:
289:
284:
151:
Nicholas
Stewart QC, for the High Court Chancery Division gave judgment on 15 February 2001. He allowed Bednash's claim in part.
263:
A Belcher, ‘Something distinctly not of this character’: how
Knightian uncertainty is relevant to corporate governance' (2008)
29:
208:
14. Miss Giret has relied on a further passage in that judgment, where
Templeman LJ warned against the dangers of
264:
175:
12. As for the authorities, Miss Giret has relied principally on the well-known decision of Oliver J in
123:
of the DGA (UK) Ltd. DGA had provided engineering consulting services. Bednash sought an order under the
239:
214:
171:(with whom Potter LJ concurred) upheld the decision of the High Court, after Mr Hearsey appealed.
138:
Bednash contended that
Hearsey had paid himself an excessive salary and pension contributions.
8:
246:
124:
47:
228:
108:
100:
187:
120:
233:
132:
104:
273:
190:. That that is the correct test appears from the judgment of Templeman LJ in
168:
201:
128:
209:
196:
Ch 442, 455, where, in a passage relied on by Mance LJ, he said:
200:"There could have been gross negligence, amounting to
82:Transaction at undervalue, excessive remuneration
271:
280:Court of Appeal (England and Wales) cases
272:
13:
295:United Kingdom insolvency case law
162:
14:
306:
290:United Kingdom company case law
285:2001 in United Kingdom case law
193:In re Horsley & Weight Ltd
1:
258:
146:
7:
222:
141:
10:
311:
240:Re Halt Garage (1964) Ltd
81:
76:
71:
66:
58:
53:
43:
35:
25:
20:
253:
119:Mr Lane Bednash was the
114:
101:[2001] EWCA 787
265:28(1) Legal Studies 46
220:
206:
243:3 All ER 1016; (Ch D)
198:
173:
247:Insolvency Act 1986
125:Insolvency Act 1986
62:Nicholas Stewart QC
178:Re Halt Garage Ltd
229:UK insolvency law
109:UK insolvency law
90:Bednash v Hearsey
86:
85:
72:Sir Martin Nourse
21:Bednash v Hearsey
302:
188:gross negligence
131:for breach of a
18:
17:
310:
309:
305:
304:
303:
301:
300:
299:
270:
269:
261:
256:
225:
165:
163:Court of Appeal
149:
144:
117:
96:Re DGA (UK) Ltd
30:Court of Appeal
12:
11:
5:
308:
298:
297:
292:
287:
282:
260:
257:
255:
252:
251:
250:
244:
236:
234:UK company law
231:
224:
221:
164:
161:
148:
145:
143:
140:
133:fiduciary duty
116:
113:
105:UK company law
84:
83:
79:
78:
74:
73:
69:
68:
64:
63:
60:
56:
55:
51:
50:
45:
41:
40:
37:
33:
32:
27:
23:
22:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
307:
296:
293:
291:
288:
286:
283:
281:
278:
277:
275:
268:
266:
248:
245:
242:
241:
237:
235:
232:
230:
227:
226:
219:
216:
211:
205:
203:
197:
195:
194:
189:
183:
180:
179:
172:
170:
169:Martin Nourse
160:
156:
152:
139:
136:
134:
130:
127:section 212 (
126:
122:
112:
110:
106:
102:
98:
97:
92:
91:
80:
75:
70:
67:Case opinions
65:
61:
57:
52:
49:
46:
42:
38:
34:
31:
28:
24:
19:
16:
262:
238:
207:
199:
191:
184:
176:
174:
166:
157:
153:
150:
137:
118:
95:
94:
89:
88:
87:
59:Prior action
54:Case history
48:EWCA Civ 787
15:
202:misfeasance
129:misfeasance
39:15 May 2001
274:Categories
259:References
147:High Court
121:liquidator
210:hindsight
223:See also
142:Judgment
77:Keywords
44:Citation
36:Decided
215:caused
267:, 55
254:Notes
249:s 212
115:Facts
103:is a
99:
26:Court
167:Sir
107:and
276::
93:or
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.