Conflicts and related-party protocol in England & Wales

The conflicts and related-party protocol in England & Wales turns on a personal statutory duty, not an internal compliance policy. A director who has any interest in a proposed transaction must disclose its nature and extent to the rest of the board before the company enters into it. That duty sits with the individual, not with the company secretary or a compliance file, and it applies to an English subsidiary of an overseas group in exactly the same terms as it applies to a wholly domestic company.

Take a board of five, two of them appointed by a parent company abroad, considering a supply contract with a business in which one non-executive holds a minority stake. The interest is real but small, and no one raises it at the meeting because the paperwork was drafted by the group's head office and circulated for signature rather than discussion. The contract completes. Three months later a dispute over price puts the boardroom conversation, or the absence of one, in front of a court.

This page sets out the test that applies in England & Wales, the register entry the transaction produces, and the point at which this firm's advisory role stops.

What changes in England & Wales

Outside England & Wales, a conflicts and related-party protocol is often built around an internal policy: a threshold value, a sign-off chain, a standing agenda item. See the broader conflicts and related-party protocol work for how that generic model is usually framed. In England & Wales the policy is secondary to a duty that exists independently of it. Company law imposes the disclosure obligation directly on the director as an individual, and a policy that narrows the statutory test does not narrow the outcome; the statute governs regardless of what the handbook says.

A second difference follows from the first. Because the duty attaches to the director personally, a foreign parent that rotates its nominees onto the English board every two years resets nothing. Each individual who takes the seat carries the duty from the date of appointment, and none of them can rely on a disclosure a predecessor made. The same protocol applied in Hong Kong attaches the duty differently, which is why a group operating in both places cannot run one policy across both boards.

Declaration has to happen before the company enters into the transaction. Once the transaction is entered into, the chance to fix an undisclosed interest by a quiet note in the minutes closes off; what remains is a formal ratification process under the company's articles, and that process is not guaranteed to succeed. A director who signed off on a conflicted contract without disclosure can end up carrying personal exposure that a compliance memo cannot retrospectively cure.

The local requirement or test that drives the work

A director who is in any way, directly or indirectly, interested in a proposed transaction or arrangement with the company must declare the nature and extent of that interest to the rest of the board, and the declaration has to be made before the company enters into the transaction. 01

The test is not whether the interest is large. A five per cent shareholding in a counterparty is enough to trigger the duty; the size of the stake affects how the board weighs the disclosure, not whether one is owed. There is a narrow exception where the other directors are already aware, or ought reasonably to be aware, of the interest, but relying on it is a risk in itself: it shifts the question from "was there a declaration" to "what did each director actually know", which is a harder fact to establish months later from a minute book that says nothing.

A related, ongoing duty sits alongside the transaction-specific one: a director must avoid a situation in which their interests conflict, or could conflict, with the company's, independently of any single deal on the table. Authorisation for that broader conflict usually has to come from the other directors, or from the shareholders where the company's articles require it. Neither duty is discharged by a policy document sitting in a shared drive; both are discharged by something the board actually did, on a date it can prove.

The filing, register or forum consequence

Companies House keeps a public register of the directors of every company incorporated in England & Wales, searchable by name and by company number, and it shows who held office when the disputed transaction was approved. 02

That register is the first place a counterparty's lawyer looks once a transaction is challenged. It does not show what was disclosed inside the boardroom, only who was in the room to be told, which is exactly why the minute book, not the register, is where a conflict is actually won or lost.

Where the interested director also holds a stake that makes them a person with significant control, a change in that status has to be notified within fourteen days of the change, and filed to the public register shortly afterwards. 03

That period runs from the date the interest changes, not from the date anyone notices it. A group that treats the register of people with significant control as an annual filing task discovers, once the window has passed, that the only correction left available is a late filing flagged as such on the public record, which is a worse outcome than a missed one raised promptly.

What this service does not include in England & Wales

Acting as a director for a person outside one's own corporate group is a licensed activity in England & Wales, and arranging for another person to take up such an appointment is caught by the same regime. 04

Providing analysis of a board's exposure and drafting the paper trail a declaration requires does not, of itself, fall within that licensed activity. Recommending or introducing a named individual to fill the seat does. 05

That boundary is a matter of who holds a licence, not a matter of preference. This firm does not supply, source or arrange a director, secretary, nominee shareholder or trustee, and does not carry out any activity that requires a trust or corporate service provider licence, which it does not hold. What a client receives instead:

• The statutory test mapped against the specific transaction, and a written view on whether disclosure is owed and when
• Draft declaration wording and board minute language that will hold up if the transaction is later reviewed
• A review of an interested director's appointment terms against the conflict they are expected to disclose
• An assessment of the ratification route available under the company's articles if disclosure was missed

Where a client also needs the licensed provider regime explained in full, that sits on the licensed provider regime page for England & Wales, a separate question from the one this page answers.

A board that has taken a nominee's word for a disclosure rather than seen it minuted often does not discover the gap until a lender, an auditor or a counterparty asks for the paper trail directly.

A board considering a related-party transaction should have three things in front of it before the meeting, not after: the interested director's own written statement of the interest, a note of when it was received, and confirmation of whether it was tabled before or after the board resolved to proceed. Reconstructing any of these after signature is possible but is never as clean as the contemporaneous record, and a reviewer, whether a court, a lender or a tax authority, treats a reconstruction with the scepticism it usually deserves.

Frequently asked questions

How often should conflicts and related-party protocol in England & Wales be reviewed?

There is no fixed statutory review interval. The practical trigger is any change in the board's composition, in shareholding structure, or in the group's transaction pattern, and a periodic check is worth building into the calendar rather than leaving to memory; a fuller view of what a review should cover sits in this note on reviewing protocol output.

Does conflicts and related-party protocol in England & Wales change for a foreign-owned company?

No. The statutory duty attaches to each director personally and applies identically whether the company is wholly domestic or a subsidiary of an overseas parent. What changes in practice is that nominee directors rotated in from abroad often arrive without local induction on the duty, which is where the gap actually opens.

What does conflicts and related-party protocol in England & Wales require in practice?

It requires a written declaration of the nature and extent of a director's interest, made to the other directors before the transaction is entered into, and a record of that declaration that survives independently of the individual who made it. A policy without that record is not evidence that the duty was met.

Who inside the company is responsible for conflicts and related-party protocol in England & Wales?

Every director individually, not a compliance officer or company secretary on their behalf. A common misconception is that a conflicts policy delegates the duty to a function; it does not, because the duty is personal and the delegate cannot discharge it for someone else.

What evidence should the board keep on conflicts and related-party protocol in England & Wales?

A dated written statement of the interest from the director concerned, the minute recording when it was tabled and how the board resolved to proceed, and, where the interest also affects a person with significant control filing, a record of when that change was notified. Evidence created after the transaction closes carries far less weight than evidence created before it.

A director carrying an undisclosed related-party interest into a signed transaction is exposed personally the moment the transaction is entered into, and that exposure does not lessen with time; it is discovered, not created, by a later dispute. Waiting to see whether anyone notices is not a neutral choice.

Assess your director exposure

Write to info@hreithlaw.com with the jurisdiction and the structure.