Ronald Fletcher Baker vai levar um caso histórico de responsabilidade dos administradores ao Supremo Tribunal em fevereiro, com o objetivo de reverter um acórdão recente que poderá ter ramificações significativas para os administradores de pequenas e médias empresas.
Rudi Ramdarshan e Victoria Huxley, sócios da área de contencioso, partilham as razões subjacentes à decisão da empresa de ajudar os seus clientes a levar o caso até ao mais alto tribunal e as medidas que os diretores podem tomar para se protegerem de situações semelhantes.
The case of Lifestyle Equities v Ahmed [2021] EWCA Civ 675, recently heard by the Court of Recurso, revolved around a trade mark dispute in which a group of defendants were found to have infringed Lifestyle Equities’ trade marks for Beverly Hills Polo Club. However, the focus of the appeal was not on the infringement itself, but on the liability of two individual defendants, Mr. and Ms. Ahmed, who were directors of two of the defendant company’s in the dispute. The appeal addressed whether the directors were jointly and severally liable for the company’s acts of infringement and, if so, whether they should be held responsible for the entire profits the company’s made or just their own personal profits. Unfortunately, the company in question went bankrupt, making the distinction between the two a critical issue for the defendants.
The clients initially represented themselves unsuccessfully in the High Court, but when they faced a barrage of enforcement proceedings before they could get their case to the Court of Appeal, they sought the help of Ronald Fletcher Baker. “Our key priority was ensuring they didn’t have to fight on all these multiple fronts,” explica Ramdarshan. “Victoria burned the midnight oil to get the enforcement proceedings stayed, and achieving that allowed us to focus on taking the assunto to the Court of Appeal.”
One of the puzzling aspects of the case is that, on the face of it, the clients had done everything right. They had instructed professionals to assist them in the creation of the brand, taken advice, conducted an image search, registered their own trademarks, and taken all reasonable steps. Ramdarshan explains, “O problema é que o processo dizia respeito à responsabilidade objetiva dos administradores de uma empresa que alegadamente agiram de acordo com um modelo comum. Na prática, isto significa que não é necessário que exista qualquer malícia, ato ilícito ou motivo impróprio por detrás da ação dos administradores. Em que momento é que a ação em questão se torna um ato do administrador e não um ato da sociedade?”
The impact of such a decision on small and medium-sized businesses, and organizations like charities, is significant. Although the case is in the field of intellectual property, o consequences could be far more widespread. Huxley explains, “The question at the heart of this is the liability of a director or senior executive employee for causing a company to commit a tort of strict liability (in this case, trademark infringement). What if they acted in good faith, with due care, within their authority, and in the proper discharge of their fiduciary duties, without actual or constructive notice that the company’s acts vontade amount to such an infringement: are they jointly liable with the company, or is the company alone liable?”.
Ramdarshan explica ainda que a decisão do Tribunal de Recurso é incoerente com a legislação estabelecida no Canadá e na Austrália e torna a lei incoerente, prejudicando a proteção pretendida da responsabilidade limitada para aqueles que operam de boa fé e em conformidade com os seus deveres ao abrigo da Lei das Sociedades de 2006.
De acordo com Huxley, “It goes far beyond Intellectual Property. Large companies, with more robust corporate structures and governance, are less likely to be impacted, but directors of small-to-medium sized businesses will be disproportionately affected if this decision stands. Most smaller companies don’t have enough time or resources to formally vote on every decision, which puts their directors at risk. This could also discourage people from becoming directors of charities or social enterprise companies, as they risk being held personally liable for decisions they had no control over.”
Ronald Fletcher Baker está profundamente consciente do impacto pessoal desta decisão e está empenhado em lutar pelos interesses dos seus clientes. O lema da empresa, ’as pessoas e a lei‘, reflecte este compromisso. ’Nunca perdemos de vista o facto de que se trata de pessoas reais que estão a ser afectadas por esta decisão,” diz Ramdarshan. “Individuals whose lives and livelihoods are impacted. People who have spent years working to build a business which has now been forced into bankruptcy.”
Huxley acrescenta: “lutámos arduamente pelos nossos clientes no Tribunal de Recurso para garantir que não seriam responsabilizados pelos lucros ilícitos de quase 4 milhões de libras que a Empresa obteve, o que é simplesmente incompreensível para dois diretores que trabalharam arduamente durante anos para construir o seu negócio e perderam tudo para pagar, e reduzimos com sucesso a sua responsabilidade pessoal para menos de 80.000 libras cada. Mas a luta não pode ficar por aqui, as ramificações da decisão são demasiado graves e de grande alcance.”
Ramdarshan explains, we have seen in Barclay-Watt v Alpha Panareti Public Ltd [2022] EWCA Civ 1169, the Court of Appeal grapple with attempts to use the Lifestyle decision to hold a director liable as an accessory to the company’s wrongdoing. Pulling the legal principal away from intellectual property cases brings into sharp focus how such an approach cuts against the very fabric of the concept of limited liability the Companies Act 2006. In the context of intellectual property, as seen in the case of Price v Flitcraft Ltd, 2022 WL 18034489 the bar for joint liability does not appear to be a particularly high one.
Quanto às medidas que os diretores podem tomar para se protegerem, explica Huxley: “Atualmente, as empresas devem proteger-se de uma situação semelhante, adoptando uma abordagem hipercautelosa. Exercer o controlo exclusivamente através dos órgãos constitucionais da empresa, limitando-se a votar nas reuniões do conselho de administração, independentemente de qualquer delegação de poderes. Mas isso não é viável para muitas empresas mais pequenas.”
In conclusion, the directors’ liability case of Lifestyle Equities v Ahmed, to be taken to the Supreme Court in February this year by Ronald Fletcher Baker, has the potential to have far-reaching and devastating implications for small to medium-sized businesses and charitable organisations. The case raises important questions about the liability of directors, senior executive employees, and even charities and trustees, for causing a company to commit a tort of strict liability, the impact it could have on individuals and their livelihoods and the extent of financial penalties that could be imposed on them personally.
O outcome of this case will be closely watched by many in the business community, and the ramifications of the decision will be felt for years to come.
Informações adicionais
- Autor da notícia:Rudi Ramdarshan | Victoria Huxley
Rudi Ramdarshan
Sócio Sénior de Contencioso
Victoria Huxley
Sócio de contencioso
