The High Court has rejected an attempt by Alexander Greensill to strike out, or obtain summary judgment on, disqualification proceedings brought against him under section 6 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986.
The Secretary of State alleges that Mr Greensill is unfit to act as a director based on three categories of misconduct connected with the collapse of Greensill Capital UK Limited and its subsidiary: (i) transactions relating to the Katerra group; (ii) alleged misrepresentations to trade credit insurers in relation to the Catfoss entities; and (iii) alleged non‑disclosure to company boards regarding the status of insurance coverage. Importantly, the Secretary of State does not allege that Mr Greensill caused the companies’ insolvencies.
Mr Greensill argued that proceedings under section 6 can only succeed if the Secretary of State proves a non‑trivial causal connection between the alleged misconduct and the insolvency of the companies. He also alleged that the Insolvency Service’s investigation was unfair and so deficient that a fair trial was no longer possible.
Mr Justice Trower dismissed those arguments. The court held that responsibility for the causes of insolvency is not a jurisdictional threshold for disqualification under section 6. Instead, it is one factor among several which the court must take into account, where applicable, when assessing unfitness and the appropriate period of disqualification under section 12C and Schedule 1 of the CDDA. Reading a causation requirement into section 6 would, the court said, distort the statutory scheme.
The court also rejected claims of unfairness and abuse of process, emphasising that alleged investigative shortcomings are generally matters for trial rather than grounds for striking out proceedings.
The result is that the Secretary of State’s claim proceeds to a six‑week trial scheduled to begin in June 2026. The judgment provides important clarity on the scope of section 6 and confirms that directors may face disqualification even where their conduct is not alleged to have caused insolvency.
Secretary of State for Business and Trade v Alexander David Greensill [2026] EWHC 639 (Ch)
Our content explained
Every piece of content we create is correct on the date it’s published but please don’t rely on it as legal advice. If you’d like to speak to us about your own legal requirements, please contact one of our expert lawyers.