Can an application for disqualification of Director be struck out for delay in proceedings?

Can an application for disqualification of...

Didn't find your answer?

A financial adviser to a Ltd Company was convicted of an offence of forgery in relation to the management of one of his client companies. The offence was an isolated incident which took place in Feb 2008, he pleaded guilty at the first opportunity and was convicted of that offence in June 2011 receiving a short suspended prison sentence. During the criminal proceedings the court was asked to consider an application by the Crown for Directors disqualification under s2 CDDA 1986. The judge having specifically considered 'future risks to the public' declined to make such an order. There are no other criminal convictions.

Separately, civil proceedings have also been brought by The Secretary of State for Business Innovation and skills under s2 CDDA. We are content that these civil proceedings have merit (as applicant was not party to the original application brought before the criminal court and there is no statutory time bar from bring proceedings etc) but what concerns us is the ongoing delay in bringing these proceedings to a conclusion. Our client has complied timely with all court orders and directions and has appeared at court on two occasions for a final hearing. Both hearings were adjourned (for various reasons but, nothing to do with our client) and a recent listing for this month has now been rescheduled for August. Assuming the August hearing goes ahead it will be over 7 years since his offence and over 3 years since his conviction.

Our question is........at what point does 'delay' make the proceedings unjust and are there any grounds or precedents for applying for the application to be struck out on this basis? Or is it simply the case that 'the delay' could maybe argued for mitigating any term of disqualification?

As footnote our client has suffered greatly as a result of his conviction which he deeply regrets. Our client was previously of good character and has no other criminal convictions. He is no longer been able to work in his chosen profession and whilst there has been a lot in the way of punishment there has been little in the way of rehabilitation. This maybe one for the legal eagles amongst you?

Replies (6)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

By johngroganjga
10th Feb 2014 11:56

This is an accountancy forum yet your question is a request for a legal opinion.

Presumably your client is acting in person in this matter, or else his legal team would be dealing with and advising him on these issues.  He is probably very ill-advised to be acting in person, but of course his decision to do so - presumably fee driven - must be respected. But it is no solution to his difficulties to try and obtain legal opinions from accountants.

If I had a cat who was unwell and I couldn't afford vets' fees it would be no solution to my difficulties to seek advice from my bank manager on how to cure it.  Isn't that what your client is doing?

Thanks (1)
avatar
By Saintly
10th Feb 2014 12:35

A bit harsh. If you don't know the answer no need to respond!

Thanks (1)
Euan's picture
By Euan MacLennan
10th Feb 2014 12:41

And if you think it is harsh ...

... there is no need for you to respond.

I would concur with John's view that this is a matter on which lawyers should be advising your client.

Thanks (2)
By ccassociates
10th Feb 2014 12:44

Sorry but I agree with johngroganja, It's not a question of "if you don't know the answer" you are on the wrong forum, your client needs to pay for legal advice from a competent specialist in the area, it is likely you will not find one here.

By the way my little Westie has a nasty rash on her back,  can anyone recommend what action I should take

 

Thanks (2)
By johngroganjga
10th Feb 2014 12:53

The best advice to give to clients is very often to send them somewhere else for the advice they need.  That is advice in itself, which is what I have suggested.  Some of us don't like clients to know that we are not all-knowing and all-seeing, but proper professionalism, not to mention our insurance policies, require that we should not advise outside our areas of expertise.

Thanks (2)
avatar
By Saintly
10th Feb 2014 14:59

Thank you john. That's all you needed to say.

PS. A lot of sarcastic wit on here. I didn't realise accountants were so funny - I think I'll just crack a joke next time!!

 

 

Thanks (0)