A Yorkshire businessman has been jailed after admitting that he continued acting as a company director for more than three years despite being disqualified.
The case provides a useful reminder that director disqualification is concerned with what a person actually does within a company, not simply whose name appears as a director at Companies House. A disqualified person may still be able to work for or hold shares in a company, but becoming involved directly or indirectly in its management can breach the ban unless the court has given permission.
For directors in England and Wales, the distinction matters. Continued involvement in a business after disqualification does not automatically amount to wrongdoing, but the boundaries of a permitted role need to be understood carefully.
What happened in the Peter Etherington director disqualification case?
On 5 August 2026, Peter Etherington was sentenced at Bradford Crown Court to 18 months in prison after admitting acting as a director of PP Global Media Limited while disqualified between April 2019 and October 2022.
Five months of the sentence resulted from the activation of a previously suspended sentence which he had breached. Etherington was also disqualified from acting as a company director for a further 10 years, taking his latest ban through to August 2036.
PP Global Media Limited produced Professional Player, a magazine aimed at professional footballers and their families.
The Insolvency Service said its investigation found that Etherington exercised real control over the company even though other individuals had formally been appointed as directors. It reported that he controlled company finances, directed staffing decisions, dealt with accountants and bookkeepers, negotiated advertising contracts and approved significant expenditure.
Investigators also reported that he received more than £100,000 from the company account, more than any of the named directors during the period examined.
The circumstances attracted wider attention because Etherington failed to appear at Bradford Magistrates’ Court in January 2026 after an email said to be from a family member claimed that he was in an induced coma. The Insolvency Service subsequently said that enquiries with two local hospitals found no record of him recently being an inpatient.
That aspect of the case is unusual, but the more important point for directors is how the Insolvency Service established that Etherington was continuing to participate in company management despite not being the formally registered director.
Can you run a company behind the scenes while disqualified?
No. A director disqualification prevents much more than simply having your name recorded as a director at Companies House.
- Government guidance explains that a disqualified person must not act as a director or take part, directly or indirectly, in the promotion, formation or management of a company without court permission. A person cannot avoid those restrictions merely by changing their job title or arranging for somebody else formally to act as director while following their instructions.
- This distinction is particularly important for people who retain a commercial, financial or family connection with a company after being disqualified.
It may be possible to remain an employee or shareholder. However, the nature of the person’s actual activities will matter. For example, a shareholder who begins issuing instructions to directors about how the company should be managed may need to consider whether their involvement is crossing the line into prohibited management activity.
Our guide to what happens if you act as a director while disqualified considers these restrictions in more detail.
The Etherington case is a clear example of why formal titles are not decisive. The Insolvency Service’s case was based on evidence of the role he actually performed within the business.
What activities can amount to managing a company while disqualified?
There is no single activity which determines every case. The overall nature and extent of a person’s involvement needs to be considered. It is always case and fact sensitive.
Official Insolvency Service guidance explains that management is not confined to somebody occupying a formal board position. Depending on the circumstances, it can include
- dealing with suppliers or customers,
- paying bills,
- renting or purchasing premises,
- hiring or dismissing staff,
- operating the company’s bank account,
- acting in a governing role; or
- making executive decisions about the company’s affairs.
That closely reflects the conduct identified in Etherington’s case.
According to the Insolvency Service, he controlled the company’s finances, directed staffing matters and negotiated commercial contracts. It also found that he arranged for a named director to sign an application for a Bounce Back Loan while he retained control over the company’s bank account and finances.
The practical issue is therefore one of substance rather than title.
Someone subject to a ban should not assume that describing themselves as a consultant, employee, adviser or shareholder necessarily keeps them outside the restrictions. Equally, holding one of those positions does not automatically mean the ban has been breached. The question is what the person is actually doing and whether that amounts to being concerned or taking part in company management.
Directors who are uncertain about the scope of a ban can read our wider Director Disqualification Guide for an explanation of how the director disqualification regime works.
What can happen if you breach a director disqualification?
Breaching a director disqualification order or undertaking is a criminal offence.
Government guidance states that a person who breaks their disqualification can face a fine, imprisonment for up to two years and a further period of director disqualification. They may also become personally liable for company debts incurred while they were contravening the ban.
The Etherington case demonstrates that imprisonment is not merely a theoretical consequence.
He had previously been disqualified in 2017, 2020 and 2022. His June 2022 disqualification had already resulted in a 12-month prison sentence suspended for two years. Following his latest guilty plea, the court imposed an immediate custodial sentence and a further 10-year director ban.
The case also illustrates the risks for people who agree to act as formally appointed directors while a disqualified individual actually controls the business. Government guidance warns that somebody who assists a disqualified person in breaking their ban can themselves face prosecution and, depending on the circumstances, potential personal liability for company debts.
The safest approach is therefore to define clearly what a disqualified person’s continuing role will involve before they participate in company affairs.
Can a disqualified director get court permission to remain involved in a company?
Yes. A director disqualification does not necessarily mean that there is no lawful route for someone to remain involved in the management of a particular company.
Under section 17 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986, a disqualified person can apply to the court for permission to act as a director or participate in the promotion, formation or management of a named company. The court may impose conditions designed to protect creditors and the public.
Permission is not automatic. The applicant must explain why their involvement is reasonably needed and satisfy the court that appropriate protections can be put in place.
Where continued participation in a viable business is genuinely necessary, obtaining permission provides a lawful route rather than trying to remain involved informally behind another registered director.
Our guide to section 17 applications for permission to act despite director disqualification explains the process and the factors the court is likely to consider.
For anyone already subject to a ban, the key point from the Etherington prosecution is that the Insolvency Service can look beyond Companies House records and examine who is actually controlling a business. If there is uncertainty about what activities a disqualified person may undertake, defining the permitted role or considering a court application before becoming involved can reduce the risk of a later breach investigation.
Francis Wilks & Jones advises directors on the full range of director disqualification issues, including the effect of existing bans, allegations of acting while disqualified and applications for court permission to remain involved in company management.
