Re Patrick and Lyon [1933] Ch 786

Facts

  • The litigation arose under the fraudulent-trading provision then in force, which empowered the court to impose personal liability on directors (and others knowingly party to the fraud) where the business of a company had been carried on “with intent to defraud creditors.”
  • Fraudulent trading, as addressed by the judges, concerns the deliberate continuation of commercial activities when those directing the company know that existing or future creditors will not be paid and nevertheless continue to contract on that false footing.
  • The court emphasised that corporate failure is a common commercial risk; companies frequently trade on credit, experience downturns, and even enter insolvency without any implication of fraud.
  • The judgment therefore sought to draw a principled line between:
    1. Ordinary mismanagement, incompetence, or over-optimism (which may justify civil claims such as negligence or misfeasance but not the punitive consequences of a fraud finding); and
    2. Conscious dishonesty, evidenced by statements or conduct designed to create a false impression of the company’s financial health or its ability to pay.
  • Directors facing financial pressure often make decisions—such as obtaining fresh credit, deferring payments, or disposing of assets—that, with hindsight, prejudice creditors. The court confirmed that those decisions are not automatically tainted unless the intent behind them was to deceive.
  • Accordingly, Re Patrick and Lyon became an authoritative clarification that the statutory phrase “intent to defraud” is not satisfied merely because business decisions were ill-judged or led to eventual loss.

Issues

  1. Whether a company’s collapse, accompanied by evidence of mismanagement or speculative trading, is enough to prove fraudulent trading in the absence of direct proof of deceitful intent.
  2. How the court should identify and articulate the mental element required—i.e., what level of knowledge or purpose must a director possess before liability attaches.
  3. Which party carries the evidential and persuasive burden, and whether that burden is discharged on the ordinary civil standard (balance of probabilities) or a heightened standard given the seriousness of an allegation of fraud.

Decision

  • The court held unequivocally that fraudulent trading cannot be inferred solely from insolvency, loss-making, or even gross mismanagement; there must be affirmative evidence of dishonesty.
  • Dishonesty, for these purposes, involves a “real and knowing intent” to mislead creditors—an intent the court will not presume from circumstances but must find proven on credible material.
  • While direct admissions are rare, the court required cogent primary facts from which dishonesty could properly be inferred: for example, falsified accounts, knowingly false assurances, or deliberate concealment of the company’s true position.
  • Optimistic forecasts, mistaken judgments, or unsuccessful rescue attempts, however unreasonable they may later appear, do not of themselves cross the line.
  • Consequently, the judges dismissed the allegation of fraudulent trading because the claimant failed to satisfy the burden of proof; suspicion and hindsight criticism were insufficient to overcome the high evidential threshold.
  • High Threshold of Dishonesty: A claimant must establish that those controlling the company intended to deceive, not merely that they should have realised creditors might suffer. Proof of negligence or recklessness, without more, is inadequate.
  • Distinction Between Fault and Fraud: Company law recognises varying degrees of managerial fault. Fraudulent trading occupies the most culpable end of the spectrum and therefore attracts personal liability and potential criminal sanctions; ordinary negligence does not.
  • Burden and Standard of Proof: The burden lies squarely on the alleging party. Although the civil standard applies, courts demand particularly strong and convincing evidence because a finding of fraud carries severe moral and financial consequences.
  • Evidential Indicators: Typical indicia—while not exhaustively listed in the judgment—include fabrication of accounting records, deliberate suppression of material facts, or the use of new credit for purposes that directors know cannot be honoured. Absence of such indicators weighs heavily against a fraud finding.
  • Governance Implications: Directors who keep proper books, obtain professional advice, and act transparently will normally be able to rebut allegations of dishonest intent, even if their judgments ultimately prove disastrous. Conversely, opacity and falsification strengthen an inference of fraud.

Conclusion

Re Patrick and Lyon [1933] Ch 786 remains a seminal authority for the proposition that allegations of fraudulent trading demand stringent proof of conscious dishonesty. The decision reassures directors that genuine but unsuccessful attempts to rescue a struggling enterprise will not, without more, expose them to personal liability for fraud. At the same time, it cautions that where deliberate deceit is shown, the law will pierce the corporate veil and impose liability commensurate with the wrongdoing.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal