When a company stops paying and its account is empty, the invoice still exists but the debtor does not, in any practical sense. A director shareholder liability claim asks whether the people who ran or owned that company can be held responsible in their own right. We assess whether that route is open before anyone spends money finding out.
Creditors bring a director shareholder liability question to us in a narrow set of situations.
The work on a director shareholder liability file falls into distinct pieces, and a client can stop after any one of them.
The file moves through stages, and the client authorises each one before it starts. We open with a document review: the contract, the invoices, any correspondence with the company, and whatever is publicly known about its filings and its officers. On that basis we give a written view on whether a personal claim is arguable at all, and against whom. If the view is positive, the client decides whether to proceed to formal research on the individuals' assets and current position. Only once that picture exists does the client decide whether to instruct proceedings, and where. Each step produces a defined output before the next one is authorised, so the client is never committed further than the last decision taken.
Many creditors assume that once a company is the contracting party, the people behind it are permanently out of reach, whatever happens afterward. That assumption closes off claims that would otherwise be worth pursuing.
Limited liability protects directors and shareholders from ordinary trading losses, not from their own conduct. Legal systems that recognise personal liability do so for specific behaviour: trading while insolvent, misapplying company funds, giving a personal undertaking, or disregarding the separation between company and personal affairs. A limitation period applies to these claims as it does to the underlying debt, and it is often shorter than the general period for a straightforward contract claim. We confirm the applicable period against the relevant statute before advising further. Whether any of this applies has to be tested against the facts of the specific file, not assumed either way.
The fee basis is agreed before instruction and depends on which pieces of the work above the client asks us to run. A document review and written opinion is priced as a fixed piece of work, because the scope is defined in advance. Research on the individuals and their assets is priced separately, once the client has decided it is worth commissioning. Proceedings against the individuals concerned are billed under whatever basis is customary and permitted in the jurisdiction where they are filed. That basis is set out in writing before any step is taken.
Director shareholder liability rules differ by jurisdiction, and so does the procedure for reaching the individuals behind a company. We work across a wide range of jurisdictions through admitted lawyers and licensed providers in the jurisdiction concerned, who file and argue the claim locally under the applicable law. Our role is to assess the claim, direct the strategy, and keep the client informed in one language throughout, rather than to act as the local court lawyer ourselves.
Only in specific circumstances, and only where the applicable law recognises them on the facts of your file. Ordinary non-payment by a company is not, on its own, a reason to pursue the director personally. We assess whether one of the recognised grounds applies before advising on a personal claim.
Dissolution does not end the underlying debt, but it changes the route available against the individuals who ran the company. In many systems the company can be restored or the claim redirected, depending on the timing and the facts. We confirm the mechanics available in the relevant jurisdiction before proceeding.
A limitation period applies, and it is frequently shorter for a personal claim than for the claim against the company itself. The period runs from a specific triggering event that depends on the jurisdiction and the ground relied on. We confirm the applicable period against the statute before advising on timing.
The company that owes you money does not become easier to reach the longer it sits unpaid. Assets move, records go missing, and the people who could be held responsible gain more time to distance themselves from what happened. A file that looks arguable today can become untestable over time, once the paper trail that would prove it has thinned out.