Is a limited company protected from divorce?
As a limited company has its own legal identity, the court cannot make orders directly against it. By way of example, if a limited company owns a house, the court could not order the company to transfer that house to the husband, even if the wife is the sole shareholder or wholly in control of the company. It is the company which owns the house, not the shareholder.
However this does not mean that a limited company is completely disregarded. If a party in a divorce is a shareholder of a limited company, it is likely the court will want to know how much the shares are worth which inevitably requires an assessment of the value of the company and its underlying assets and interests. The court could order that those shares are sold to realise their value. A court could order that there is a transfer of shares from one spouse to another, which frequently happens if both spouses are joint shareholders. Alternatively, the court may offset the value of a shareholding against other assets so the shareholder keeps the shares in full but their spouse keeps more of a different asset.
A company may also be seen as a source of liquidity if it holds excess cash. Whilst a court cannot order a company to pay a lump sum to somebody, it could make an order against a shareholder requiring them to make a cash payment to their spouse knowing full well that the only way to satisfy the payment is to extract cash from the company such as through declaring a dividend or taking a loan from the company.
Related FAQs
If suppliers still wish to terminate the contract, they must contact the directors or the officeholder dealing with the insolvency process and obtain their approval to terminate the contract – which, of course, might not be given.
If the continued obligation under the contract to supply goods/services to the customer would place the supplier in financial hardship the supplier can apply to court for permission to terminate the contract. This will involve time and legal expense.
There is not a magic number. It depends on the nature of the organisation, the work carried out, the organisational structure, the geographical spread, working patterns and conditions. We would give specific advice personalised to the organisation and taking all these and other factors in to consideration. There is no such things as too many MHFAs!
As their employer, you have an overriding duty to provide a safe system of work. The Trust would not be able to run a defence to say that an employee “waived their rights” and chose to continue to work. Provided the decision around restricting duties has been carefully thought out, a full risk assessment undertaken and the employee has been truly consulted about the impact on them, then the decision taken will be a reasonable management instruction. Failing to follow that reasonable management instruction could amount to a disciplinary offence.
- It is important to have a clear paper trail for any agreed reduction in salary, and hence any reduction in the amount of contributions. However, the contribution rates (as opposed to the amounts) should be the same as normal, and hence all processes and software should function as per normal and, amongst other things, remain compliant with auto-enrolment employer duties.
- However, if the period of affected contributions does not overlap precisely with the period of reduced salary, for example because of different cut-off dates, there may well be instances of non-compliance with auto-enrolment employer duties at the beginning as well as at the end of the period covered by the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme.
- Accordingly, where an employer takes advantage of the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme, good communication with the persons responsible for pensions administration and detailed record-keeping are essential to prevent non-compliances in the short-term and confusion in the long term.
- The Pensions Regulator has published regularly-updated guidance for employers.
- It will take “a proportionate and risk-based approach towards enforcement decisions … with the aim of supporting both employers and savers”. In other words, the law remains the same, but the Regulator will show restraint in enforcement against breaches.