With a 100% success rate in section 17 applications over 20 years, our disqualification team can help you be a director despite a ban. Call us today.
Introduction
Section 17 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 (CDDA) allows a disqualified person to apply to court for permission to act as a director or be involved in company management despite their ban.
Permission is not automatic: it is discretionary, and the court will only grant it if safeguards are in place to protect creditors and the public. Conditions often include borrowing restrictions, independent financial oversight or time limits. The 2025 Wilson case, involving misuse of Bounce Back Loans, highlighted the importance of full and frank disclosure when seeking permission.
Our team at Francis Wilks & Jones as a 100% unbroken record of success in section 17 applications stretching over a 20 year period.
What does section 17 of the CDDA allow?
Section 17 provides a lifeline for directors who have been disqualified but whose continued involvement in business is genuinely necessary. The law recognises that disqualification, while protecting the public, can also harm companies that rely on the expertise of key individuals. Section 17 balances these competing interests by allowing applications to court for permission to act.
- The application must be made using Form N208 in the civil courts. It must identify the specific companies where permission is sought, explain why the applicant’s involvement is essential, and propose safeguards to mitigate risks.
- The burden of proof lies with the applicant to show that permission is justified.
If permission is granted, it is almost always subject to conditions. These may include financial restrictions, reporting obligations, or time-limited leave. The aim is to allow the director to contribute without exposing creditors or the public to further risk.
You can read more about how to remain a director despite a disqualification ban in our free “stay a director despite disqualification” guide
Why is section 17 important for directors facing disqualification?
Disqualification can end a director’s career for years. Bans last between two and fifteen years depending on the seriousness of the misconduct. For many, this is commercially devastating. Section 17 of the CDDA 1996 provides a way back.
It is not a loophole. The court scrutinises applications closely and will not grant permission unless convinced it is necessary and safe. But for directors who play a critical role in a business, or who can demonstrate they have reformed, section 17 can mean the difference between survival and collapse.
From a policy perspective, section 17 encourages directors to be honest. If they are transparent about past misconduct and open about future safeguards, the court may give them another chance.
What happened in the Wilson case in 2025?
In Wilson v Secretary of State for Business and Trade [2025] EWHC 691 (Ch), a director disqualified for misuse of Bounce Back Loans sought permission under section 17 to keep managing a group of companies.
Although the court initially granted interim permission subject to strict conditions, final permission was refused after later hearings because
- the applicant’s evidence was misleading,
- interim conditions had been breached
- the businesses’ tax compliance was poor; and
- he also failed to show a genuine need for him personally to act.
The case is a clear reminder that section 17 relief turns on absolute candour, rigorous compliance and demonstrable public-protection safeguards—conditions can assist, but they will not save an application if credibility and compliance are lacking.
What conditions can the court impose when granting permission?
Conditions vary but commonly include limits on borrowing without consent, requirements to file regular accounts, appointment of an independent financial director, or restrictions on involvement in certain types of transactions.
Time limits are also common. The court may grant permission for a defined period, such as two years, after which the director must reapply. This allows ongoing monitoring of behaviour.
The principle is that conditions should address the risks posed by the applicant’s past misconduct. A director who failed to keep proper records may be required to appoint an external accountant. A director who misused loans may be barred from taking out new finance. The flexibility of section 17 ensures that permission is tailored to the circumstances.
How do you apply for section 17 permission?
The process begins with Form N208, a claim form used in civil proceedings. The application must be filed in the appropriate court and served on the Secretary of State, who has the right to oppose it.
The application must include detailed evidence. This should cover
- the applicant’s business background,
- the misconduct that led to disqualification,
- the reasons why continued involvement is necessary, and
- the safeguards proposed.
Supporting documents such as business plans, financial statements and references are important
The burden of proof is on the applicant. They must persuade the court that permission is justified. This requires honesty, transparency and credible proposals. Courts are wary of directors who minimise their misconduct or fail to address risks.
What evidence is needed to support an application?
Evidence is crucial. Applicants should prepare detailed business plans showing the need for their involvement. They should provide accounts, tax records and contracts demonstrating that the company is legitimate and viable. They should also address the misconduct directly, explaining what happened, why, and what has changed since.
Independent support can strengthen the case.
- References from accountants, auditors or business partners can show that safeguards are in place.
- Proposals for external oversight or regular reporting can reassure the court that risks will be managed.
Above all, full disclosure is essential. Attempting to conceal past misconduct or downplay its seriousness is likely to result in refusal. The Wilson case highlighted this point: the court emphasised that honesty was the foundation of the application.
What happens if a section 17 application is refused?
If the court refuses permission, the director must comply fully with the disqualification. They cannot act in company management or risk criminal liability. They may reapply if circumstances change, but repeated refusals can damage credibility.
For many directors, refusal is commercially devastating. It can lead to business collapse and personal financial loss. This is why preparation and legal advice are so important. A well-prepared application stands a far greater chance of success.
What practical steps should directors take when considering section 17?
The first step is to take legal advice early. Applications are complex and require careful preparation.
Our team at Francis Wilks & Jones as a 100% unbroken record of success in section 17 applications stretching over a 20 year period.
Directors should be honest about their past misconduct and realistic about the safeguards needed. They should gather evidence of business need and prepare detailed proposals for oversight. They should also be prepared to accept conditions, even if onerous.
Our No 1 team at Francis Wilks & Jones
We have the leading team of disqualification lawyers in the country. Our experts include
Stephen Downie. Stephen is a partner and heads up our director disqualification team. Stephen is dual qualified as both a solicitor (with higher rights) and is a qualified accountant with particular expertise in complex accounting and tax matters. What differentiates Francis Wilks & Jones from other solicitors is that Stephen was previously an Insolvency Examiner within the Insolvency Service, an accountant working within Insolvency Practitioner firms investigating directors’ conduct and – following qualification as a solicitor in 2006 – Stephen spent 5 years as solicitor for the Secretary of State and Official Receivers, managing director disqualification claims. For the last 10+ years since joining Francis Wilks & Jones, Stephen has advised and assisted directors in defending director disqualification claims and getting them permission to continue acting as a director despite disqualification.
Alev Tonks. Alev is an associate at FWJ with a wide range of disqualification expertise, most recently defending many directors from Bounce Back Loan and tax allegations and getting permission for them to remain acting as directors.
Andy Wilks. Andy is the founder of the team and a partner at FWJ. He remains the record holder for the number of section 17 applications in a single court hearing – 17 separate companies in the case of Smith v Secretary of State for Trade & Industry [2003] ALL ER (D) 72. The case study can be found in our case study section of our website. He has also been advising directors on disqualification claims since the late 1990’s and is a leading expert in this area..
