Insights Corporate Insights

Shedding Light on Shadow Directors in Corporate Governance

13.03.2024

4 minute read

Authored by

Share

LinkedIn icon

Unmasking the Puppet Masters – Shedding Light on Shadow Directors in Corporate Governance.

What is a shadow director?

In simple terms, a shadow director is an individual who has not been formally appointed as a director, yet they still have significant influence in directing the actions of a company.

The case – Aston Risk Management Ltd v Jones [2023]

In the case of Aston Risk Management Ltd v Jones [2023], the court offered crucial insights into the interpretation of shareholders’ agreements and the delineation of directorial responsibilities within corporate structures.

The case centred around the actions of an individual director, referred to as J, of a parent company (HoldCo), and their implications for the subsidiary company (SubCo). HoldCo’s shareholders’ agreement (SHA) established the framework for the group’s organisational structure.

The SHA stipulated that SubCo’s business operations fell under the purview of the HoldCo board, with stringent limitations on SubCo’s directors’ autonomy in decision-making, requiring explicit consent from HoldCo’s board.

A dispute arose when J, as a director, allegedly breached fiduciary duties by authorising payments from SubCo to other companies without commercial justification, including one in which he held an interest. Additionally, J was accused of transferring SubCo’s business to another company, in which he was also involved, before SubCo entered administration.

J defended his actions, asserting that they were collaborative decisions made with another director, C, acting on behalf of the HoldCo board, citing the SHA and his lack of formal appointment as a director of SubCo.

However, the court rejected this argument, asserting that J’s involvement in SubCo’s affairs transcended the role of oversight typical of a HoldCo director, indicating a deeper engagement.

The court deliberated whether J’s actions should be attributed to him individually or considered as decisions made collectively by the HoldCo board regarding SubCo’s affairs. Several factors led the court to categorise J’s actions as individual, including:

  • Dominant Influence: J emerged as the primary decision-maker, with C seemingly following J’s lead, indicating a lack of cohesive decision-making characteristic of a functional board.
  • Fundamental Role: J’s involvement extended beyond occasional actions; he played a pivotal role in day-to-day decisions, diverging from the oversight role expected of the HoldCo board.

The case was distinguished from previous rulings, notably Commissioners of HM Revenue and Customs v Holland [2010], where the defendant’s actions were deemed representative of a corporate director fulfilling their role.

In contrast, Aston illustrated a distinct scenario where HoldCo was not a corporate director of SubCo, and J’s actions allowed for multiple interpretations.

The judgement

Ultimately, the court deemed J to have acted as a de facto director of SubCo.

The judgement highlights the risks for individuals – particularly directors of holding companies – of becoming heavily involved in the affairs of subsidiaries. This can end up bringing with it personal responsibilities and liability for the individual.

If you have any questions or would like further information, please do not hesitate to contact our Dispute Resolution team, who will be happy to help. 

How can Morr & Co help?

If you have any questions or would like any further information on the content of this article, please do not hesitate to contact our Dispute Resolution team on 01737 854500 or email info@morrlaw.com and a member of our expert team will get back to you.

Disclaimer
Although correct at the time of publication, the contents of this newsletter/blog are intended for general information purposes only and shall not be deemed to be, or constitute, legal advice. We cannot accept responsibility for any loss as a result of acts or omissions taken in respect of this article. Please contact us for the latest legal position.

Stay informed

Receive regular insights and practical updates from our legal experts.

Contact our team

Please choose from the below options so that we can direct your enquiry to the right team member

Sorry, we do not provide criminal law advice.

You may wish to contact your local Citizens Advice Bureau or your local Law Centre, who will be able to help you find support.

Sorry, we do not provide advice on consumer disputes.

You may wish to contact your local Citizens Advice Bureau or your local Law Centre, who will be able to help you find support.

Sorry, we do not provide advice on benefits related disputes.

You may wish to contact your local Citizens Advice Bureau or your local Law Centre, who will be able to help you find support.


Please note that we are currently only providing this service to our existing clients.

You should bear in mind that if your dispute is valued at less than £10,000 you will not be able to recover your legal fees from your opponent.

You may wish to consider consulting the Citizens Advice Bureau or your local Law Centre as an alternative.

In order to enable us to give you an accurate estimate of our likely costs to advise you, we will need to review the key documents. As a guide, our costs for reviewing the key documents and giving you initial advice are likely to be in the region of £1,750+VAT.

Before we can confirm whether we are able to act for you, we need to carry out a conflict check to make sure that we have not previously acted for your opponent.

Assuming our conflict check is clear, we will contact you to arrange a time for you to speak to one of our solicitors. Please can you confirm that you still wish to proceed with this enquiry. *

Our fees for debt recovery work typically start at £1,750 + VAT, so it is unlikely that we would be able to help you on this occasion. You may wish to contact the Citizens Advice Bureau or your local law centre, who may be able to help resolve your issue.

We are sorry that we are not able to help you on this occasion.

You may wish to contact the Citizens Advice Bureau or your local law centre, who may be able to help resolve your issue.

If your claim relates to an incident that took place more than 4 years ago, you may not be able to bring a claim unless you were under 18 years old at the time.

We are sorry, but it is unlikely that we are able to help you with your claim on this occasion.

You may wish to contact the Citizens Advice Bureau or your local law centre, who will be able to help you find support.