• news-banner

    Expert Insights

Recent case highlights the importance of correctly declaring dividends

A recent case, Re BM Electrical Solutions Ltd, has found a director-shareholder liable to repay sums which were held to be director loans despite having been recorded as dividends in the company’s accounting software package.

Background

For tax saving reasons, the director-shareholder had agreed to a very low salary (net £11,702) on the basis that he could claim other monies as dividends.

After falling into financial difficulty, the company was wound up on 3 August 2015. Upon his appointment, the liquidator identified that transfers of approximately £220,000 had been made to the director-shareholder over a three and a half year period. The liquidator accepted that credit should be given to the director for his salary but claimed that the balance should be treated as loans from the company to the director, which should be repaid.

At trial, the director stated that a small proportion of the sums paid to him were his salary, whilst the rest of the payments were entered onto the accounting software package under a code for ‘dividends’. This was claimed to be a tax efficiency measure.

However, after the first year of trading, the director did not cause any further accounts to be prepared, meaning that the company only ever filed one set of accounts (for the period to 31 January 2012, filed on 11 August 2012).

Findings

Judge Lance Ashworth QC held that the sums paid to the director-shareholder were to be treated as director loans made with the expectation that there would be sufficient profits each year to pay them off. The reasons for this were two-fold.

For a dividend to become payable, it must be declared. As the director could not show that he had made such a declaration, he could not argue that the payments received should be treated as dividends.

Notwithstanding the above, a declaration (and subsequent payment) of dividends must be conducted in accordance with Part 23 of the Companies Act 2006. Under Part 23, a company may only pay dividends out of profits available for the purpose and those profits are to be determined by reference to profits, losses, assets and liabilities ‘as stated in the relevant accounts’ (s830 and s836). Those relevant accounts are the last annual accounts or interim accounts if the distribution would otherwise contravene Part 23. Given that no accounts had been drawn up since 2012, even if the payments were considered to be distributions, they would still be considered unlawful as the formalities in Part 23 CA 2006 had not been compiled with.

Accordingly, the director was required to repay the sums to the company (s847 CA 2006).

Takeaway Points

This case highlights the importance of correctly declaring shareholder dividends. Directors should ensure that dividends are formally and correctly declared in accordance with Part 23, otherwise there will be no liability on the company to pay it.

The judgement also provides a reminder of the risk to director-shareholders who agree to accept a nominal salary on the basis of being able to draw further funds as dividends.

The clarity given by this judgment will be welcomed by officeholders seeking to recover purported dividend payments made to director-shareholders in excess of their salary.

Our thinking

  • London International Disputes Week: Navigating International M&A Disputes: Insights and Strategies for 2025

    Stephen Burns

    Events

  • Law Middle East profiles Nicola Jackson, Corporate Restructuring and Insolvency Partner based in our Dubai office

    Nicola Jackson

    In the Press

  • Directors’ Disqualification Under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986: What UK Directors Need to Know

    Claudine Morgan

    Insights

  • Charles Russell Speechlys represents Europlasma in its strategic takeover of Fonderie de Bretagne

    Dimitri A. Sonier

    News

  • Insolvency Administration Orders – Applications by Personal Representatives

    Daniel Moore

    Insights

  • Carris Peacey and Sylwia Jatczak write for R3 RECOVERY Magazine on the Building Safety Act 2022 and the obligations on IPs

    Carris Peacey

    In the Press

  • Joseph Evans, Cassidy Fan and Jessica Boxford write for New Law Journal on the future of insolvency: a digital asset revolution

    Joseph Evans

    In the Press

  • Stepping into the Director's Chair: The Landscape of Risk in Distressed Companies – Misfeasance Trading

    Jessica Boxford

    Insights

  • Property Patter: Challenges for commercial property in 2025

    Emma Humphreys

    Podcasts

  • The Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill: A Wider Category of Assets for the Insolvent Estate?

    Cassidy Fan

    Insights

  • Navigating UK Financial Services Regulation: A Guide for Insolvency Practitioners

    Daniel Moore

    Insights

  • Charles Russell Speechlys Advises SAFE Group on Successful Restructuring

    Dimitri A. Sonier

    News

  • Navigating the Legal Landscape of Non-Performing Loan Acquisitions in the UAE

    William Reichert

    Quick Reads

  • Insolvency Insights: Cross border recognition – UAE, DIFC & ADGM

    Nicola Jackson

    Podcasts

  • The reform of litigation funding edges closer as CJC report is published

    James Walton

    Insights

  • Winding-Up Applications and Arbitral Clauses – The English and Hong Kong Courts Diverge

    Gareth Mills

    Insights

  • Insolvency Insights: The new UAE bankruptcy law & the role of the trustee

    Nicola Jackson

    Podcasts

  • Recent developments in directors’ liability in the UAE and England & Wales

    James Hyne

    Insights

  • Insolvency Insights: Maximising Recovery – The role of the CRO in restructurings in the Middle East

    Nicola Jackson

    Podcasts

  • The Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 introduces changes to the Building Safety Act 2022

    Carris Peacey

    Insights

Back to top