A disqualified director can apply to court under section 17 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 for permission (the Act says “leave”) to act as a director of, or take part in managing, a named company. The applicant usually has to show a reasonable need, not just a wish, and that the public will be adequately protected, and the court can attach conditions. Permission can never cover acting as an insolvency practitioner.

What can permission allow, and what can it never allow?

A disqualification order under section 1 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 (CDDA) bans a person, for the period stated, from being a director, acting as receiver of a company’s property, or in any way being concerned or taking part in the promotion, formation or management of a company “unless (in each case) he has the leave of the court”. A disqualification undertaking under section 1A has the same wording. So the ban is built with a gateway: the court can open it for specific activity.

The second limb of the ban, not acting as an insolvency practitioner, has no leave wording. The Insolvency Service’s guidance confirms the court cannot give a disqualified person permission to act as an insolvency practitioner.

Permission is sought for a named company. The Insolvency Service describes the application as one to act as a director or take part in the promotion, formation or management “of a named company”. It is not a general lifting of the ban, and the Companies House register of disqualified directors shows where someone has obtained permission to act for specified companies. For the wider effect of a ban, see director disqualification.

Which court do you apply to?

Section 17 sets out where the application goes:

  • If the order was made by a court with jurisdiction to wind up companies, the application goes to that court (section 17(1)).
  • If the order was made under section 2 by another court, or under section 5, it goes to a court that had jurisdiction to wind up the company the offence related to (section 17(2)).
  • For an undertaking accepted under sections 5A, 7 or 8, it goes to any court to which the Secretary of State could have applied for an order at that time (section 17(3)).
  • For undertakings accepted by an officer of HMRC under sections 8ZF or 8ZG, it goes to a court to which HMRC could have applied (section 17(3ZC)).
  • Where someone is subject to more than one order or undertaking, the application goes to a court that could hear an application on the latest one (section 17(4)).

Who responds to the application?

Section 17(5) says that on the hearing the Secretary of State “shall appear and call the attention of the court” to anything relevant and may give evidence or call witnesses. In practice that means the Insolvency Service, which invites anyone considering an application to contact its legal services team for general guidance. Where HMRC obtained the order or accepted the undertaking, an officer of HMRC takes that role instead (section 17(5A) and (5B)). Where the order was a competition disqualification order under section 9A, the Competition and Markets Authority or the specified regulator that applied appears (section 17(6) and (7)).

The applicant should therefore expect the evidence to be tested. The person responding will usually look at the conduct that led to the ban, the proposed role and the structure of the company.

What does the court consider?

The Insolvency Service’s guidance summarises two tests:

  1. Need. The applicant will usually have to satisfy the court that they have a reasonable need to do what they are asking, not just that they want to be a director.
  2. Protection of the public. The applicant must also satisfy the court that, if permission is given, the public will be adequately protected. For that reason the court may require safeguards and impose conditions or restrictions.

The two points work together. A strong reason, such as a family company that cannot continue without the applicant’s technical skills, does not help if the conduct that led to the ban (for example not paying tax, or poor records) could easily happen again in the new company. Safeguards an applicant might propose to deal with that risk could include an independent director or chair, an external accountant producing regular management accounts, a limit on the applicant’s role (for example no authority over the bank account), or a time limit.

An application is stronger when it explains the company precisely: its business, who else is running it, its finances, what the applicant will and will not do, and what they will be paid. It should also address the original findings honestly rather than reargue them.

When does the ban start, and can permission be sought before then?

Under section 1(2), unless the court orders otherwise, a disqualification order begins at the end of 21 days beginning with the date of the order. The Insolvency Service says an undertaking usually starts 21 days after it is signed as accepted. A director who expects to need permission can use that window to resign appointments they cannot keep and to prepare the application, because acting without permission once the ban starts is a criminal offence. See what happens if you act while disqualified.

How does this compare with bankruptcy and sanctions?

An undischarged bankrupt is not disqualified under section 1 but commits an offence under section 11 by acting without the court’s leave. That application goes to the bankruptcy court and the official receiver can oppose it, so the process differs: see can an undischarged bankrupt be a company director. People disqualified automatically through the director disqualification sanction under the Sanctions and Anti Money Laundering Act 2018 apply to the Insolvency Service for a licence for specified acts rather than to court.

What might an application look like in practice?

Illustration only. Tom was disqualified for six years after his previous company traded on while unable to pay HMRC. His sister runs a small engineering company in which Tom is the only qualified design engineer, and she wants him on the board to sign off technical work and lead customer projects.

Tom applies under section 17 to the court that made the order, naming the company. His witness evidence explains why the company needs him as a director rather than an employee, sets out the current finances and confirms an external accountant prepares monthly accounts and handles VAT and PAYE. He offers conditions: his sister remains a director, he has no signing rights on the bank account, and the accountant reports quarterly to both directors. The Insolvency Service reviews the evidence and appears at the hearing. If the court grants permission, it applies only to that company and only on the conditions set.

What mistakes do applicants make?

  • Assuming permission is needed only to be a director. Taking part in management without a title also needs permission; an employee role that includes managing the business can cross the line.
  • Asking for permission in general terms rather than for a named company and defined role.
  • Showing only that they want the role, not why the company reasonably needs them in it.
  • Offering no safeguards linked to the conduct that caused the ban.
  • Acting while the application is pending. Until permission is given, the ban applies in full.
  • Breaching the conditions once permission is granted, which takes the activity outside the permission.

Advisers working with a client who has a ban should also consider shadow and de facto directors, since informal control through others is also caught.

Company directors can protect the business against the cost of an HMRC check with tax investigation insurance, which pays up to £100,000 of accountant’s fees with Solar Protect. Read how our cover works or get a quote.

Related Accountapedia entries

Sources

Reviewed by Christine Anderson, Broker, Solar Protect. Last reviewed 19 October 2026. Part of Accountapedia, the Solar Protect guide to UK tax and accounting. This page is general information, not personalised advice.