Limited Company Requirements

[Baldhead]

Do the directors of a limited company have to hold monthly meetings to inform other directors what is happening within the company?

Baldhead

 

[doctor Bob]

no

 

[Woodchips2]

Have a look at http://www.companylawclub.co.uk/topics/ ... ings.shtml.

Regards Keith

 

[marcros]

Bob nailed the response that I was going to put.

 

[Baldhead]

Thanks guys, so if say for example, I had filed a claim in the small claims court, in theory only one director may know, and it's possible that the other director has no knowledge that his/her company are being sued!

Baldhead

 

[doctor Bob]

Thanks guys, so if say for example, I had filed a claim in the small claims court, in theory only one director may know, and it's possible that the other director has no knowledge that his/her company are being sued!

Baldhead

Sounds serious, get some proper advice, don't trust internet thickies.

 

[Baldhead]

Thanks guys, so if say for example, I had filed a claim in the small claims court, in theory only one director may know, and it's possible that the other director has no knowledge that his/her company are being sued!

Baldhead

Sounds serious, get some proper advice, don't trust internet thickies.

That made me smile, it is very serious, husband and wife team and I'm not sure his missus knows anything about it, or perhaps it's just that she is as thick as him!!!

I have had a lot of very good advice (wife's niece is a solicitor, although she does not specialise in small claims). Why someone would admit fault in writing then say they don't accept any of my claim is beyond me, then put in a counter claim for work they have done for someone else is just stupid.

Baldhead

 

[beech1948]

If you are sure of the advice you have received then there is no reason not to write to both directors informing them of your position and the reasons why. Especially if you believe one director would hold back the bad news from the other.

Al

 

[Baldhead]

If you are sure of the advice you have received then there is no reason not to write to both directors informing them of your position and the reasons why. Especially if you believe one director would hold back the bad news from the other.

Al

I thought of doing that and asked on another forum if they thought that would be ok, I have the directors address (easily obtainable off the internet) but decided against it, I can't go into any more detail than that at this time, but thanks for that Al.

Baldhead

 

[Random Orbital Bob]

you're sueing the legal entity effectively rather than the directors personally. The directors are officers of the legal entity with a fiduciary responsibility so would be accountable for any wrong doing the court deemed the legal entity to have perpetrated. In other words the directors are legally responsible for a company's behaviour.

So all you need to worry about it to write to the director or both at the official company address. How they choose to disseminate information or respond to it isn't your concern.

They'd obviously be barking mad to fail to discuss a court case amongst themselves but again, you needn't worry about that because the ruling will take place in court in spite of their ability (or not) to communicate with each other.

 

[Spindle]

Sounds serious, get some proper advice, don't trust internet thickies.

Hi

My sentiments exactly - get advice from someone who can be held responsible for it.

Regards Mick

 

[Baldhead]

you're sueing the legal entity effectively rather than the directors personally. The directors are officers of the legal entity with a fiduciary responsibility so would be accountable for any wrong doing the court deemed the legal entity to have perpetrated. In other words the directors are legally responsible for a company's behaviour.

So all you need to worry about it to write to the director or both at the official company address. How they choose to disseminate information or respond to it isn't your concern.

They'd obviously be barking mad to fail to discuss a court case amongst themselves but again, you needn't worry about that because the ruling will take place in court in spite of their ability (or not) to communicate with each other.

Thanks for that Bob, because it's a husband and wife 'team' I have purposely not contacted both directors independently, I have as you say addressed all correspondence to the company, if I win, it will give me great pleasure to think of the grief that one of the directors will be giving the other, even in their home environment.

Baldhead

 

[Baldhead]

Sounds serious, get some proper advice, don't trust internet thickies.

Hi

My sentiments exactly - get advice from someone who can be held responsible for it.

Regards Mick

You are both correct, but, because the small claims court is supposed to be easy, and have a more relaxed attitude, you cannot reclaim the full costs (or any?) for a solicitor from the other party should you win.

Baldhead

 

[Random Orbital Bob]

That's my understanding too and hopefully the costs would be that much lower to bring the case anyway for that very reason. There is one thing really worth checking which many people miss.

Have a good scrub of your home insurance policy because it may be possible you're covered for contractual disputes that relate to your work in that. Some of them require you to tick a box that costs an extra tenner and often people don't sign up to that cover but as I discovered with mine many years ago, I was covered without consciously selecting it when I bought the policy.

That turned out to be rather handy because I brought a civil suit against an entity that acquired the company I was a director of. The case ran for a year and I won in the end. My legal costs were over £70K...all paid by my home insurance and ultimately paid by the losing side.

What you had to do is (obviously check you're covered first) write to them outlining the specifics of the case and they will tell you whether or not you're covered. They work on a principle that after evaluating the details, they need to believe you have a more than 50% chance of winning. If you don't then your cover isn't valid. It's quite a good test because by accepting the case that alone gave me the confidence to pursue vigorously because my lawyer believed we would win based on precedent etc. I was really surprised to find my home insurance covering a work related legal issue....but there you have it...result

Edit: Probably worth mentioning that the nature of the case plays directly into my comments (paranoid or otherwise) about the water bill thread which is to say that the executive boards of major corporations, regulated or otherwise routinely take steps to deny staff, pensioners, shareholders, assets that are rightfully their's under contract law. Thus anyone who is naïve enough to believe a few regulatory guidelines will be sufficient to prevent greedy and illegal behaviour by those in power might want to spend a little bit more time in board meetings!

 

[Baldhead]

Thanks to you all for your help, we have a court date for next month, and win or lose, I will let everyone know the outcome.

Baldhead

 

[Random Orbital Bob]

Best of luck

 

[Baldhead]

Best of luck

Thanks Bob, you probably don't remember but you have helped me with this in an earlier post.

Baldhead

 

[Random Orbital Bob]

Ah....I confess I don't remember the detail though I do remember there was another legal related thread quite some time ago. The wish of luck still stands though