Directors’ Duties in the matter of Uno plc and World of Leather plc [2004]

Unfairpak can confirm that this case has been referred to in the Defendant’s Skeleton Arguments.


Directors’ Duties In the matter of Uno plc and World of Leather plc [2004].


In this directors’ disqualification case it was accepted by the defendant directors that they were aware that the Group of Companies was in financial difficulties; that they continued to take deposits from cash paying customers; that they failed to segregate those deposits and that they knew that there was a risk that if the Group went into formal insolvency before customers received delivery then the customers would be unsecured creditors and would not receive the goods ordered or the refund of their deposits.


The Court agreed, however, with the submission made on behalf of the defendant director that their conduct did not amount to unfit conduct warranting a Disqualification Order. The reason for that was that the Secretary of State had overlooked the all important concession that, at all material times, the defendant directors had reasonable grounds for believing that insolvent liquidation could be avoided.


The Judge found that the defendant directors could not be criticised for their conduct. His detailed summary of the directors’ actions in the case showed that:-


1. They constantly reviewed the Company’s options.


2. They regularly received and considered updated financial infor mation.


3. They regularly took professional advice from solicitors and accountancy experts.


4. They kept their major creditors and suppliers fully informed of the actions they were taking.


5. They had gone out of their way to try and secure a solution which had reasonable prospects of succeeding and which, if achieved, would have satisfied all of the Group’s creditors not least its cash paying customers; and


6. They minuted key decisions taken and the reasons for them.

3 thoughts on “Directors’ Duties in the matter of Uno plc and World of Leather plc [2004]

  1. So did the Directors of Farepack do the same as those of Uno plc/World of Leather? If not then surely it can be proved they acted irresponsibly?

    • This is only one piece of case law which has been picked out of the Skeleton.

      The defendants case is basically that they always believed there would be a solvent solution for the Group.

  2. Unfairpak felt it important to highlight this piece of case law and what actually happened regarding the attempt to disqualify these directors.

    As a campaign, we feel it is essential that we attempt to give both sides of the story as far as possible.

    We had only been reporting from the Insolvency Service’s Skeleton but felt it appropriate that we should report from the Defendant’s Skeleton also.

    This particular case was picked out due to the fact it is quite similar to Farepak and to highlight the fact that the case is not straightfoward to say the very least.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *