Jersey: Angelmist Properties Limited v Leonard And Others

The case1, a summary judgment application/interim payment application, provides important guidance on the discharging of the director's duty of care. It can be seen as a warning to all directors, especially those of companies that form part of a larger structure where other interests might come into play. It is a timely reminder to offshore directors of English companies as to their obligations under English law. The judgment sets out the minimum standard of care expected from all directors and makes clear that falling short of that standard is not acceptable.

The central question in this case was whether the directors of Angelmist Properties Limited ("Angelmist") were in breach of their duty of care to the company when they approved the sale of a company asset for a very substantial undervalue in comparison to its market value. A valuable property was sold to the sole, corporate, shareholder of Angelmist, i.e. to its parent company. That corporate shareholder was owned by the trustees of an offshore trust. While the directors should have been acting in the sole interest of the company, the Court found that they were influenced by the interests of both the shareholder and the beneficiaries of the overlying trust, interests which conflicted with those of the company, and that as a result they failed in their duty to the company..

While each case is decided on its facts, this judgment affirms that in transactions that involve parent companies or subsidiaries, the duty all directors owe is to the company for which they act as director. As fiduciaries, directors owe a duty of utmost loyalty and good faith and should not take into account others' interests when acting as such.


The first and second Defendants ("the Defendants") were directors of Angelmist from 2 August 2005 until 12 October 2006. The third Defendant was a Jersey company which provided trust administration services and which employed the Defendants. The transaction in question was one of a series of transactions whereby a large office block on the south bank of the Thames ("the Property") was to be brought within an offshore trust structure in a tax efficient way.

Angelmist owned the Property. Angelmist was originally not part of the offshore trust structure, but that changed when its shares were purchased by a company owned by the trustees ("HoldCo"). Thereafter the shares were to be transferred in specie to HoldCo as part of a solvent members' liquidation of Angelmist.

In the event, the Property was transferred to HoldCo by a straightforward sale and purchase of the Property. It is that sale and purchase which was in question in this case.

Angelmist's claim was that the Directors, in breach of their duty of care to it, allowed the Property to be transferred at a very substantial undervalue. The sale price was £148m, however Angelmist's expert at the hearing valued the Property at £189m and the Defendants' expert at £180m. On any view, therefore, the Property was undersold to the extent of at least £32m.

As a result of the the sale at undervalue, Angelmist was left without any significant assests, but with very substantial tax liabilities. These arose as the sale, although to its own holding company, was a sale to an offshore company and by reason of section 17 of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Acts 1992, Corporation Tax became payable upon the true gain in the value of the Property. The resultant liability was £7.7m with penalties of £1.5m. With additional interest at £1.3m and a further sum of £3.2m in respect of liquidation expenses and other creditors, a total liability of £13.7m arose. Angelmist was, on any measure, insolvent. In the event Angelmist was not wound up on the basis of this assessment, which was raised by HMRC in July 2012, but due to unpaid corporation tax arising from its tax return dated May 2008.

Angelmist sought summary judgment in the sum of £40.5m or an interim payment in respect of, or arising out of, the undervalue. The figure of £40.5m refelcted the estimated undervalue given by the Claimant's expert with reference to the value at which the property was actually sold.

Directors' duties – the standard required

The Court set out the minimum standard that is expected from a director when discharging his duty of care. It made reference to a judgment2 of in respect of the statutory obligation upon a director to exercise appropriate care, skill and diligence, as now set out in section 174 of the Companies Act 2006. This section was not in force at the date of the transaction but as it was a codification of existing law it, provided helpful guidence. The duty is to:

"exercise the care, skill and diligence that would be exercised by a reasonably diligent person with the general knowledge, skill and experience that might reasonably be expected of a person carrying out the functions carried out by the director in respect of the company and with the general knowledge and experience that director, in question, had."

The Court also referred to another case3, which held that the standard of care required is to be measured both subjectively, against the actual knowledge, experience and skills of a given director and also, by the application of objective criteria.

The Court summarised the authorities referred to as setting out the minimum objective standard of care to be expected of a director carrying out his functions in respect of the company. In particular, it concluded that a director should carry out those functions at no lower standard than he would apply if he were acting on his own behalf. The particular skill, experience and expertise of the director in question may well raise the standard to be expected of him in the exercise of a particular function. However, any lack of experience or expertise cannot justify any lower standard of care than the director would give to his own affairs.

It followed that on the facts of this case, if there were no real prospect that the Directors would have sold at such an undervalue if the Property had been theirs, summary judgement could be given in respect of the Directors' alleged breach of duty, irrespective of any detailed investigation of their particular skills or expertise.

There was argument as to whether expert evidence should be admitted as to the conduct of the Directors. However, while both Directors were professional people, neither was sued as such and their professional standing was not in issue. They were sued on the basis that they had failed to exercise the ordinary care to be expected of them in respect of their own affairs.

It remains to be seen whether a court in an offshore jurisdiction with a developed and highly regulated professional fiduciary sector, such as Jersey, would approach the matter differently and require a higher standard of professional directors. In this case a lower standard was required and the Directors failed to meet even that. By way of note, the 2014 case of Nolan v Minerva4 case made frequent refences to the "statutory and regulatory obligations" of the directors and used these as a yardstick by which the honesty of their actions was measured. Although dealing with different law and facts it seems highly likely a court in Jersey would have applied these higher standards.

Having emphasised that a director owed his duties to the company for which he acts, and in its best interests, the Court also made some interesting comments about duties of directors in the context of a company forming part of a group. This issue is not uncommon in an offshore context. He said this:

"There is equally no doubt but that, where a company forms part of a group, circumstances can arise where a transaction which, on its face, is entered into for the benefit of another company in the group can be sensibly regarded by directors as being in the overall, albeit indirect, interest of 'their' company and, thus, that the directors in endorsing or implementing such a transaction will not be in breach of their duty.

In entering into such a transaction, however, the directors must still exercise appropriate care in the interests of the company of which which they are director. They cannot forego the interests of their company in favour of the group, or in favour of the trust [in this case], or other entity, of which 'their' company is an asset, or part."

The Court said that if they do that, there may be grounds to excuse them from liability under section 1157 of the Companies Act 2006 or by ratification of their conduct by shareholders. A similar provision exists under Jersey company law under Article 212 – Power of court to grant relief in certain cases.

Application of the facts to the standard expected

The Directors were appointed to the Board on 2 August 2005 and authorised the purchase of the Property on 3 August 2005. One of the directors had executive responsibility for the overall structure while the other did not, acting as a "so-called independent director", quoting the Court directly. Subsequent internal re-organisations within the corporate services provider for which the defendant Directors worked meant that both directors ceased to have any day-to-day role with Angelmist. They were only brought back into the picture the day before the sale of the Property on 1 August 2006, one year after its purchase.

The Directors raised a defence that they had relied upon valuation advice given by a property advisory company ("the Adviser") which gave advice on property matters to the beneficiary of the overlying trust. The Directors asserted that their approval of the sale transaction was based on professional advice from a law firm as to tax matters and the valuation advice. However, neither defendant recalled whether the valuation advice that they later relied on, was given to them orally or in writing even though, as will be seen, it was wrong to have relied on this advice in any event.

The Court noted that both Directors were asked to act at short notice and, in the case of the disposal, "under some pressure of time."

The Defendants' position during the hearing was that the Directors regarded the Adviser as Angelmist's property adviser and that the central question was whether, in doing so, they had fufilled their obligation to "exercise an appropriate degree of care and skill in relation to the transaction". In other words, did they deal with the Property as they would have done had it been their own?

Angelmist contended that no property owner would conceivably have sold a very valuable commercial property without an independent valuation.

In support of this it was contended that the Directors should have had reference to a number of particular matters, which were:

  1. the acquisition cost of the Property in 2005 for £150.5m (made up of a contract price of £145m and an uplift of some £5.5m representing a total value attributed to it by the vendor)
  2. the valuation in July 2005 by independent valuers at £167m;
  3. an earlier valuation by by the same independent valuers in March 2006 that put the value of the Property at just under £214m
  4. that in August 2005 (the time of the purchase) a draft report prepared by the tax advisers had suggested a "Directors' Valuation'" of £152.6m;
  5. that at the time of the tax advisers' report the Property Adviser's explanation of the difference between the contract purchase price of £145m and the "Directors' Valuation" was that a desktop valuation had been carried out and shown a valuation 'a little higher' than the contract figure;
  6. that as at the date of the sale, the value of the Property was shown in Angelmist's books as £150.5million; and
  7. That in balance sheets for April 2006 and subsequently, the value of the Property was shown at £150.5million.

In essence, it was said by Angelmist that the Defendants, had they been exercising the standard of ordinary care that they would have applied to their own affairs, should have concluded that no sale could be safely effected for full value without the precaution or protection of an independent valuation.

The Defendants said they took the position that as the transaction was between two companies in the same group there was no need to call for an independent valuation, particularly where such valuation would cost the company hundreds of thousands of pounds. The view was taken that the Property Adviser's advice was sufficient and that, in light of a contract purchase price of £145m, in a rising market, £148m seemed a sensible figure. Further it was not plausible to gainsay an expert in the field of valuation.

Given the weight of indicators as to a higher value as referred to in i to vii above the Court concluded that the Directors failed to exercise appropriate care in resepct of the sale of the Property on the basis that they had failed to exercise the ordinary care to be expected of them had it been their own. The Court said that:

"An owner of a Property of a value measureable in very many millions of pounds selling that Property for himself would, manifestly, not have conducted the sale in the way that was allowed to take place in this case."

At the heart of the matter was the fact that the Property Adviser was also the purchaser's agent and that the purchaser was an asset of the trust. In essence, the Property Adviser was acting in the interests of the purchaser and the trustees and not in the interests of Angelmist. There was a clear conflict of interest which should have been apparent to the Directors in that as agents of an owner of a very valuable property, to whom they owed fiduciary obligations, they should not have entrusted the valuation to a valuer not acting solely in its interest. As the Court noted:

"A[t] the barest minimum such an owner would require a truly independent valuation. Such a valuation was lacking in this case. Additionally it is realistically inconceivable that a vendor of the Property, acting in his own right, would have allowed the sale to go ahead upon the basis of what must, on any view, have been a cursory valuation, lacking explanation, or detail."

Given the welter of indicators that the sale price of £148m was not in the best interests of the company, the Defendants' approach to comparing the £145m purchase figure to it "was not good enough."

The inter-group transfer argument

The Defendants argued that because the sale of the Property was an inter-group transfer no independent valuation was required and, had one been commissioned, it would have been a costly exercise. The Court gave this short shrift, citing Charterbridge Corporation Ltd v Lloyds Bank Ltd [1970], and said:

"Mr Brown was quite wrong in thinking that the inter-group nature of the transaction justified, or explained, the failure to procure independent valuation advice. His duty was to Angelmist; not to the group and not to the overall transaction of which the transfer formed a part."

As to the cost of the valuation the Court was also equally scathing, noting that the valuation for the purposes of the proceedings had cost £27,500 and that no enquiries had been made of the independent valuers who already had knowledge of the matter. Even if the valuation had been as expensive as thought by the Directors, the Court thought that given the value of the Property, this would have been a sensible way of ensuring the Property was not sold at an undervalue.

Another defence raised: ratification by the members

Another unsuccessful defence deployed by the Defendants was that of authorisation. The sale of the Property had been approved by Angelmist's sole shareholder. If the execution of the transfer had had no effect upon the solvency of Angelmist, ratification of the transfer by the sole shareholder would have provided a complete defence to the claim. However, because the sale pejudiced the solvency of Angelmist owing to the crystallisation of tax liabilities and caused prejudice to its creditors, then because the duty of the directors extended beyond the company to its creditors, the shareholders did not have the authority or power to absolve the directors from the consequences of any breach of duty.

The Defendants also claimed that they would receive an appropriate level of financial support from the trustees, the shareholder and the beneficiaries and relied upon this assistance when deciding to go ahead with the transaction. However, in the absence of realistic evidence that Angelmist had a legally binding entitlement to support, the prospects of support constituted no more than a hope or, at best, an expectation, that funds would be provided. The support was in the form of a letter from the shareholder which did not constitute a legally binding commitment and, as to the trustee, reference was made to letter of support but this could not be located, and was in unknown terms between unknown parties.

This 'hope' of support was insufficient to establish a realistic possibility that the company could pay its debts arising from the transfer and raised a strong possibility that the transfer would render Angelmist cashflow insolvent following the transaction. Had the true value of the Property been ascertained, at £180m, then the prospect of tax liabilities arising would have been very real. The fact that the Directors did not know that the sale would render Angelmist insolvent did not matter.

Arguments were made by Angelmist that the Directors' employer, the Jersey professional corporate services provider, acted as a shadow director of Angelmist. The Court dismissed this claim, primarily on the basis that the Directors' own evidence was that they always exercised independent judgment.

Summary judgment was given and an interim award of £12m was ordered to be paid by the Directors. The decision is subject to a potential appeal.


The Court was satisfied that there was no realistic prospect of the Directors successfully resisting the claim that they acted in breach of their duty of care and skill in respect of the sale of the Property.

There are many useful lessons from this judgment for directors. The judgment reminds us that it is imperative for directors:

  • To have in mind what the duty of care is, and to whom it is owed. Had the Directors had this at the forefront of their minds when making decisions, the Property would not have been sold at the price which they sold it.
  • To recognise conflicts of interest when they arise in transactions such as this. The Directors were directors of both Angelmist and the shareholder and they should have strictly focused on the interests of Angelmist. They should have also identified the conflict of interest in taking valuation advice solely from the purchaser's adviser. Taking independent advice will always be the most robust option.
  • To have close regard to the documents relevant to an impending transaction, regardless of the time constraints imposed. The Directors had avaliable to them all the documents they needed to be able to identify that they needed an independent valuation and that the price at which they were about to agree to sell the Property was at a significant undervalue. The Directors should have also taken into consideration the financial standing of the company before entering into such a transaction and ensured that any financial support offered in the event of financial difficulties was legally binding.
  • To remember that the ratification of their acts by shareholders, while a useful risk mitigation tool, does not provide a defence to claims by creditors (and liquidators) if those acts lead to the insolvency of the company.


[1] Decision of Master Bowles in Angelmist Properties Ltd v Leonard and others [2015] EWHC 1858 (Ch)

[2] Popplewell J, in Madoff Securities International Limited v Raven and Others [2013] EWHC 3147 (Comm.)

[3] D'Jan of London Ltd, Copp. v D'Jan [1994] 1 BCLC 561

[4] Nolan & Ors v Minerva & Ors [2014] JRC078A

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Mondaq Advice Centre (MACs)
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.