Claim to have been a passive director is not a defence to a restriction application

Voluntary liquidation – section 819 of the Companies Act 819 – liquidator – order restricting appellant from acting as a director or secretary of a company for a period of five years – loan facilities acquired by NAMA – Statutory receiver – petition to wind up the company – Liquidator argued that payments made to an accountancy firm a day before statutory liquidator was appointed – Directors must have been aware of the insolvency – even if they were not aware of payments, they should have ensured controls in place to prevent them from happening – High Court did not accept the claim that the degree of influence exercised by NAMA was such that a lower standard applied to them as directors – appellant displayed a fundamental misunderstanding of the serious duties of a director – onus of proof on the director – respondent must deal with matters raised by the liquidator and any other matters they consider relevant to the consideration by the court of the overall conduct of the person – distinction between executive and non-executive director – responsibility is a matter of degree - High Court Judge did not find that the appellant acted dishonestly – Liquidator's complaint relates only to irresponsibility – Appellant did not act responsibly in relation to his conduct of the affairs of the company - appeal dismissed – costs follow the event.