High Court Applies Company Law to Find Director in Breach of Duties and Repayment of Loan Accounts

Citation: [2023] EWHC 3124 (Ch)
Judgment on


In the High Court judgment of Northern Powerhouse Developments Limited & Ors v Gavin Lee Woodhouse, various key legal principles are applied to determine the outcome of claims against a director for breach of duty and repayment of overdrawn directors’ loan accounts. This article dissects the case, spotlighting the crucial legal tenets that underpin the judgment, and links them to the specific issues addressed within the case summary provided.

Key Facts

The case centers on claims brought by four claimant companies against their sole director, Gavin Lee Woodhouse, for breaches of fiduciary duties under the Companies Act 2006 and for the repayment of sums owed based on overdrawn directors’ loan accounts. The First and Second Claimants alleged Woodhouse engaged in unlawful activity under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA) by raising investments through unregulated schemes, misused company assets, continued trading during insolvency, and improperly withdrew funds through directors’ loan accounts. The Third and Fourth Claimants sought repayment of funds as a simple debt.

The Court applied established principles of Company Law from the Companies Act 2006 and case law, particularly regarding directors’ duties (sections 171, 172, and 239), misconduct (section 213), and the validation of transactions (sections 180 and 239).

Directors’ Duties: Crucial to the case were the obligations under sections 171 (proper purpose) and 172 (success of the company), including the duty to consider creditors’ interests when insolvency looms (Sequana).

FSMA Compliance: Whether the business model constituted an unregulated collective investment scheme under sections 19-25 and 235 of FSMA was considered but not conclusively addressed due to the case’s focus on other issues.

Dishonesty: The Ivey v Genting Casinos test for dishonesty was pivotal, determining if Woodhouse’s conduct was dishonest according to the standards of ordinary decent people, regardless of his awareness.

Transactional Validation: The judgment considered the validation of transactions under section 180, director’s relief under section 1157, and ratification of directors’ actions under section 239.

The Court also engaged with principles related to the valuation of company assets, the impropriety of diverting company funds, the commerciality of inter-company loans, and the maintenance of separate corporate personality and entity.


The Court found Woodhouse in breach of his directors’ duties to the First and Second Claimants, engaging in dishonest conduct that failed to meet the standards of ordinary decent people. Specifically, he was found to have:

  1. Used company funds improperly.
  2. Continued trading during insolvency.
  3. Withdrew funds for personal benefit, exacerbating the insolvency situation.

The Court concluded that the First Claimant could recover over £1.49 million as damages for breach of duty or as a simple debt, and the Second Claimant could recover nearly £800,000. The Third and Fourth Claimants were entitled to a simple debt repayment of £20,000 each. The possibility of proprietary remedies and equitable compensation, potentially including compound interest, was acknowledged but not conclusively determined within this judgment.


The Northern Powerhouse Developments Limited & Ors v Gavin Lee Woodhouse judgment reflects a rigorous application of Company Law principles, emphasizing the gravity of a director’s fiduciary obligations and the consequences of their breach. The Court’s meticulous approach underscores the imperativeness of directors acting within the company’s interests and statutory confines. In clarifying the legal obligations of directors, the case serves as a reminder of the stringent duties directors have towards their companies and the severe repercussions of self-serving conduct.

Related Summaries