Amway UK Appeals Opinion

Neutral Citation Number: [2009] EWCA Civ 32
Case No: A212008/1525

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM HIGH COURT, CHANCERY DIVISION, COMPANIES COURT
MR JUSTICE NORRIS
[2008J EWHC (Ch) 1054
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London,WC2A 2LT
Date: 29/0112009
Before:
LORD JUSTICE RIX

LORD JUSTICE TOULSON
and
LORD JUSTICE RIMER
Between:
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR BUSINESS, Appellant 1

ENTERPRISE AND REGULATORY REFORM Claimant
- and-
AMWAY (UK) LTD Respondent
1Defendant
Mr Mark Cunningham QC and Mr Andrew Westwood (instructed by Treasury Solicitors)

for the Appellant 1Claimant
Mr David Chivers QC and Mr Philip Gillyon (instructed by Messrs Eversheds) for the
Respondent 1Defendant
Hearing dates: Monday 8th , Tuesday 9th and Wednesday lOth December
Judgment Approved by the court

for handing down
If this Judgment has been emailed to you it is to be treated as 'read-only'.

You should seud any suggested amendments as a separate Word document.
,Judgment Approved bv the court for han'ding down BERR v AMWAY (UK) LTD
(subject to editorial corrections)
Lord Justice Rix :
1. The trial judge, Norris J, exerclsmg his jurisdiction under section l24A of the
Insolvency Act 1986 to wind up a company in the public interest if he thinks it just
and equitable to do so, refused the petition of the Secretary of State for Business,
Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (the "Secretary of State") to wind up Amway (UK)
Limited ("the company"). He did so because he considered that the company's new
business model, which was already (in large part) in operation at the time of trial,
eliminated the defects of the old business model; and also in the light of undertakings
which the company offered, the Secretary of State had declined, but the judge
accepted as a condition of his order. There is a dispute which this court will have to
resolve as to the importance of the role of these undertakings for the judge's ultimate
decision to refuse the petition to wind up. On the way to that ultimate decision the
j~dge had made some ~t!D!1gfi!1dingsabOPt. IbeQld hU8i.ness model.. i'!lheitQll a.
relatively narrow basis. He said that if the matter had stopped there, he would have
wound up the company.
2. The factual position in a nutshell, necessarily over-condensed at this stage, is this. The
company is part of an international group which operates a multi-level direct selling
business in personal and home care products. At the time when the petition was
sought the company had been turning over some £13 million per year, albeit
unprofitably. Amway's business in the United Kingdom had been in existence for
some thirty years. The selling was carried out by members of the public, so called
independent business operators or !Bas, who in turn recruited other !Bas, aithough
new IBOs could also be recruited directly via the company's website. Recruits eatned
bonus or commission on both their own sales and also the sales of all recruits in their
downline (ie their recruits, or recruits of their recruits, and so on), but it was difficult
for large sums to be earned by !Bas without long-term success in recruiting a
motivated downline. The majority of !Bas merely self-purchased and earned nothing
at all. Only a very small minority earned large sums by way of bonus. A new recruit
paid £28 on recruitment (the cost to the company of a starting-up kit comprising
brochures, order forms, price lists and the like) and thereafter a renewal fee of £ 18 per
year. An !BO could leave at any time (on 30 days notice) and recover the purchase
price of any products (less a handling charge of 7.5%) if returned in good condition.
3. The fault which the judge found against the company was essentially that it had failed
to supervise and control the representations and promotional material used by its own
!Bas in their own recruitment. The judge acquitted the company itself of any
misrepresentation (by what he called a fine margin) but he criticised it severely for its
failure to control its !Bas. Their misrepresentations (which the judge described at one
sugg~:.:sti8n·that\vas,' c:ls!cr· to·· pr0sp~r as-un,IRQ, ·than·,l,va.s-in fact the,·easei> Some

!Bas misrepresented their own income from bonuses. They were selling a dream,
whereas the reality was different. The judge inferred that people bought into that
dream and were thus deceived.
Court of Appeal Unapproved Judgment: BERR v AMWAY (UK) LTD
No permission is granted to copy or use in court
4. The Secretary of State had originally put his case on a much wider basis. It was
alleged that the company's business was an unlawful lottery contrary to section I of
the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976 and/or an unlawful trading scheme contrary
to section 120 of the Fair Trading Act 1973. It became common ground shortly before
trial, however, that the new business model could not be so criticised on either score,
if only because of the absence under the new model of any initial or annual renewal
fee for an lBO. The judge found that the old business model was not an unlawful
trading scheme, and that the new business model was not an unlawful lottery, but did
not feel it necessary to deal in terms with whether the old business model was a
lottery. It might be said that the judge's logic in dealing with the lottery issue (see
paras 68/69) compelled a finding that the old business model could also be acquitted
ofthcch"rge,'·cspecia!!y.as·theJudge.h:Jd,.no.. n~~d.JoIl1alq~.fiJ1<:Ung~,j1}X~§P~(;,~5)!J~~
new business model. That that was the judge's essential view is also suggested by his
remark (at para 62) in asking himself how he should dispose of the petition "assuming
the "lottery" and "fair trading" grounds are also not made out". But be that as it may,
on this appeal the Secretary of State, by his respondent's notice, sought to raise again
the allegations that the old business model was an unlawful lottery and/or unlawful
trading scheme, and persevered in those submissions in his skeleton argument for this
appeal. It was submitted that, even though it continued to be accepted that the new
business model could not be attacked on either of these grounds, the unlawfulness of
the old model would support the Secretary of State's broader case that the company
should have been wound up. However, the Secretary of State did not persevere in
those grounds at the hearing. Thus, there is no longer any allegation that the
company's business is or has been unlawful under the 1973 or 1976 Acts.
5. On this appeal, the Secretary of State submits that the judge has fundamentally
misunderstood his jurisdiction. If he considered, as he did, that the old business model
was commercially unacceptable (or "inherently objectionable" to use a jurisprudential
gloss which has been adopted as a form of label), then he had no effective option
other than to wind up the company. To refuse to do so because of changes to the
business model which were reactive to the Secretary of State's interest in the
company was wrong in principle. It was also wrong in principle to accept any
undertakings as a condition of the refusal of the petition in circumstances where the
Secretary of State was not content with the acceptance of such undertakings. The
decision in this case was "aberrant".
6. In response, the company submits that the judge acted within his jurisdiction and that
the rest was an exercise of discretion which cannot be faulted. The judge was entitled
t...Ti;;,;f~Dc.,zl:;;·····F'ct1tiDn··,dsc;p,;:tGfhefi,gdingth~t.·the. cQmp!1ny.·.. WQld4:hfl;Y~pyyn:WQHng . llP
ifi tvvcTcstil1 pursuing: tsold ,business·.rr10del The judgehadtn decid~"wh~th~rJt,was
just and equitable at the time of trial for the company to be wound up. The judge was
entitled to accept undertakings from the company, even if historically such orders
were unusual in the absence of the Secretary of State's consent. In any event, the
judge did not refuse the petition because he was willing to accept the company's
Court of Apneal Unapproved .Judgment: BERR v AMWAY (UK) LTD
No permission is granted to copy or lise in court
undertakings, but rather he accepted the undertakings because he was willing to refuse
the petition.
7. The high point of the Secretary of State's case on the authorities consists in two
extracts from respectively Re Walter L Jacob & Co Ltd [1989] BCLC 345 (CA) and
Re Bamford Publishers Ltd (2 June 1977, unreported, Brightman J, cited with
approval by Sir Andrew Morritt V-C in Re Supporting Link Alliance Ltd [2004] 2
BCLC 486).
Tn Rp Wo!tpr l. Jacob this court was dealing with a dishonest dealer in securities
which had ceased business. Nicholls LJ said (at 360f/h): . . .
"Having regard to all these matters, I would have had no doubt, if the company
had still been dealing in securities, that it was just and equitable that it should be
wound up. Does the fact that the company ceased to carryon that business
immediately before the petition was presented make a crucial difference? In my
view it does not. It is, of course, an important factor to be taken into account. The
investing public is no longer at risk from any future activities of the company.
The company is no longer a member of FIMBRA. But it would offend ordinary
notions of what is just and equitable that, by ceasing to trade on becoming aware
that the net is closing around it, a company which has misconducted itself on the
securities market can thereby enable itself to remain in being despite its previous
history. The wishes of those who control such a company, that it sbould remain
extant for other purposes will, normally, carry little weight in the balancing
exercise. On the other hand, by winding up such a company, the court will be
expressing, in a meaningful way, its disapproval of such misconduct. Moreover,
in addition to being a fitting outcome for the company itself, such a course has the
further benefit of spelling out to others that the court will not hesitate to wind up
companies whose standards of dealing with the investing public are
unacceptable."
9. In Re Bamford, dealing with the acceptance of undertakings, Brightman J said this (as
set out in Re Supporting Link at 504b-g):
"Quite clearly the company has been engaged in a disreputable system of trading.
The company has offered a series of undertakings which are designed to secure
, " : , : - , ,-~ . - - _.; .'> ""': __ .,.., ,"" _-..~ f·.- · _... .. l' 1 •
not acCeptable [0 the pe'tllluutr. Hi (;ase' HUs rnattcr"goes-lo-unrgnercourt--tt-i11ay
be helpful if I say something about the undertakings. First, the undertakings
offered, assuming as I do they were implemented, would in my view make the
. company's trading activities free from legitimate complaint however useless
those trading activities may be from the point of view of the public interest. The
Court of AppeallJnapproved .Judgment: 8ERR, AMWAY (UK) LTD
reason that I reject the undertakings is this. Petitions under s 35 of the Companies
Act 1967 are common. Many petitions go by default. A few are opposed. If it
were open to a company to oppose a petition under s 35 on the basis that
undertakings are offered to regulate the future conduct ofthe company's business,
the Department of Trade would end with a mass of delinquent companies on
probation. It is not the function of this court, or at any rate of the Chancery
Division, to police undertakings given to it except perhaps in the limited field of
the welfare of infants. It is for the litigant to bring to the attention of the court, if
he so wishes but not otherwise, any activity which he considers a breach of an
undertaking given to the court. If this court accepted undertakings by a company,
which is the object of as 35 petition, there would be thrown upon the Department
of Trade, and not upon the court, the obligation of policing those undertakings.
That is not the function of the Department. I take the view that the court ought not
a s 35 petition, relating to its future conduct owing to the burden which would
thereby be thrown upon the Department of Trade, unless the Department is
willing in a particular case that such undertakings should be accepted by the
court; and I do not think that the Department is under the smallest obligation to
exhibit such willingness."
10. The company does not dispute these citations but submits that they speak to their own
material, namely of cases of essential dishonesty where the court could have no trust
in the company concerned. It points out that Nicholls LJ himself accepted that the
ceasing of an offending business "is, of course, an important matter to be taken into
account", and submits that in the present case it was not simply a case of a business
ceasing but one where a substantial and long-standing and lawful business, albeit with
an important defect, could be and had been cured of that defect. As for undertakings,
it emphasises the judge's observations that the new business model had not been
subjected to a detailed critique by the Secretary of State nor had the company's
witnesses been cross-examined, and that it was not through lack of trust that he
accepted the company's undertakings but because he saw "no need to spurn them". It
also emphasises other passages from the authorities to demonstrate that what the
judge did could not be criticised in principle but only (and illegitimately) as a matter
of discretion, or what Nicholls LJ had called "the balancing exercise". Thus it relies
principally on the following two extracts.
II. The first is Sir Andrew Morritt V-C speaking in Re Supporting Link after reviewing
the jurisprudence from Re Bamford Publishers onwards. He said:
ill Illy l'i6w ·Ulil6gsltk S6cret:i[y6ISiaie .iScol1tcl1t· that tl1cpCiifiol1 is

disposed Of0I1·1.111dertakirigs··tI1e cOl.lrtsI1oUid be very· slowll1deed ·toaccepiihem
in preference to making a winding-up order. All the reasons given by Brightman J
in Re Bamfi)rd Publishers Ltd remain as valid now as they were then. If the court
is satisfied that the offending business has ceased and it is prepared to trust the
existing management then it may be appropriate to dismiss the petition altogether.
Court of Appeal Unapproved .Judgment: BERR v AM WAY (UK) LTO
But if it is not so satisfied or does not trust the existing management then I find it
hard to envisage a case in which it would be appropriate to dismiss the petition on
undertakings as to the future conduct of the company's business."
The company submits that the present case is a fortiori the situation where the
offending business has ceased: it is one where an essentially lawful business has been
cured of its offending defect. It also submits that the judge was prepared to trust the
company's management, and that his unwillingness to spurn the undertakings which
had been offered did nothing to undermine his conclusion.
12, The second extmct is from.!],e m05t reG"n( decjsi(:mil1tllis<:;()urt on the nature of the
section 124A jurisdiction, namely Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v. Bell
Davies Trading Ltd [2004] EWCA Civ 1066, [2005] 1 BCLC 516. There Mummery
LJ, presiding in a court which also contained Scott Baker LJ and Lawrence Collins J,
in a judgment ofthe court described that jurisdiction as follows:
"[110] A valuable review of the authorities on the proper approach of the court to
s 124A public interest petitions, in general, and to the practice relating to the
acceptance of undertakings, in particular, was carried out by Sir Andrew Morritt
V-C in his judgment in Re Supporting Link Alliance Ltd [2004] EWHC 523 (Ch),
[2204]2 BCLC 486. The judge has a discretion whether or not to make a winding
up order. As for undertakings, the court has a discretion whether or not to accept
them if they are proffered and whether or not to make the giving of them a
condition of dismissing the petition. In considering the exercise of his discretion
the willingness or otherwise of the Secretary of State to accept undertakings,
which have to be policed by the DTI, is an important factor.
[Ill] Thus, in the exercise of his discretion, the judge is entitled (a) to dismiss the
petition on undertakings if, for example, he is satisfied that the offending business
has ceased or if the undertakings are acceptable to the Secretary of State; or (b) to
dismiss the petition on undertakings, even if that course is opposed by the
Secretary of State, although that will be unusual; or (c) to refuse to accept
undertakings and to wind the company up, if, for example, he is not satisfied that
those giving the undertakings can be trusted.
[112] In our judgment David Richards J followed the correct approach in this
case. There is no error in the exercise of his discretion to order that the dismissal
of the petitions was conditional on undertakings.
(l) In deciding whether it was just and equitable to wind up BOT and KDA he
eV iu~rlct::, BDT' aftdI(T A "houldbc.GornpulsoriIy ~NGund· up andvvh)·( they sho uJd

not: see the judgment of Nicholls LJ in Re Walter J Jacob Ltd [1989] BCLC 345,
cited in Re Supporting Link Alliance Ltd [2004] 2 BCLC 486 at [50] - [53].
Court of AopealUnapproved .Judgment: BERR v AM WAY (UK) LTD
(2) On the one hand, the judge's finding on the control issue meant that BOT and
KTA were involved in the conduct of an unlawful scheme. On the other hand,
there were, as the judge described them, 'significant factors against the winding-
up order' as listed by him at para [68] of his judgment.
(3) One of those factors was that the activities of BOT And KTA did not involve
deliberate wrong-doing; another was that the operation of the scheme, which he
had held to be illegal, would cease. These conclusions were amply borne out by
the evidence filed on behalf of BOT and KTA that it was their aim and intention
to operate lawfully and in compliance with legal regulatory requirements; that
they had not sought to conceal or disguise any of their activities; and that they
had been open and constructive in their dealings with the OTI seeking a
constructive and responsible dialogue concerning regulatory issues...
(6) The judge then considered the question of undertakings and concluded (para
[69]), that, if undertakings were given which ensured that the scheme would cease
to function, it would not be just and equitable to wind up either of BOT and KTA.
The undertakings were given. The Secretary of State did not press for winding-up
orders. The petitions were dismissed."
13. The Bell Davies case is a good illustration of the balancing exercise which the court
has to perform in exercising its discretion under section 124A. It is reflected in other
passages to which the judge also referred, with the agreement of counsel before him,
as containing material guidance. Thus he cited the following dicta of Nicholls LJ from
Walter Jacob:
"In considering whether or not to make a winding up order... the court has regard
to all the circumstances of the case as established before the court at the hearing"
(at 351 i).
"A petition having been duly presented...the next stage is when the petltJOn
comes before the court. At this second stage the court is concerned with the
whole of the evidence before it, and the submissions made thereon by the parties.
The court is not concerned with what was the material before the Secretary of
State at the earlier stage when he formed his opinion... the court's task... is to
carry out the balancing exercise...having regard to all the circumstances as
disclosed in the totality of the evidence before the court" (at 352i-353c).
"[This court must exercise its own discretion] in the light of the circumstances as
they now are ... " (at 357h).
lbe judge also referred to a passage in Re Senator Hanseatische

Verwaltungsgesellschafl mbH [1996] 2 BCLC 562 at 606c where Millett LJ said:
Draft 28 January 2009 13:21 7

Court of Appeal t!napproved Judgment: BERR v AMWAY (UK) LTD
"The safeguard for the individual is that the decision to wind up the company is
not left to the Secretary of State but to the court, which must consider whether it
is just and equitable to do so. In reaching its decision the court will take into
account the interests of all the parties, present members and creditors of the
company and present participants in the scheme, as well as the interests of the
public who may hereafter have dealings with the company."
Thejudge's appreciation a/the law
1,1 The indlIe set 911tllisreferencestothe~as~s relied0J:J.by the Se(;retary of State as well
as t~ other jurisprudence at paras 10 and 14 of his judgment. Keiying on sudl
jurisprudence, he said:
"The Secretary of State is not a licensor of approved business models or a

business design consultant and is under no obligation to approve or to police a
scheme of undertakings relating to the conduct of an individual company's
business. The basis for this view is to be found in the decision of Brightman J in
Re Bamford Publishers Ltd (cited and commented upon by the Vice Chancellor in
Re Supporting Link Alliance Ltd [2004] 2 BCLC at 503i-505d)."
It is not suggested by the Secretary of State that the judge erred in his appreciation of
the law, only in its application.
15. The judge also referred to the statutory regulation relating to pyramid selling schemes.
Thus he commented on the fact that Part XI of the Fair Trading Act 1973 was passed
to address the problems created by-
"Get rich quick schemes [operating] on the same basis as chain letters with each
member recruiting further members. Members payout large sums in the
expectation of a high return...the forecasts are derived from ... the principle of
geometric progression leading to the theoretical levels of recruitment reward
which, in reality, are impossible to achieve..."
r?g').bti(}ns.whic.h.h~dbeen.nWgeJC)qeal.\oV.ith
pyraillillsl;; Uing ·schctncs;itl'1973,··19g9 and <1997i' The earHerreguJationsJorb?(tth e
making of statements that a participant would during any period receive a specified
financial benefit unless the promoter had evidence that the indicated sums had
actually been obtained during the same period as a result of participating in the
scheme. However, in the Trading Schemes Regulations 1997 the requirement to
Court of AppcallJnapproved .Judgment: HERR v AMWA Y (UK) LTO
No nermission is granted to copy or use in court
substantiate financial benefits was removed: Parliament considered that sufficient

protection would be afforded to prospective participants if advertisements and any
resulting contract that they signed contained warnings, inter alia, "Do not be misled
by claims that high earnings are easily achieved". The company's material contained
the necessary statutory warnings.
The facts found relating to the old business model
16. Thejudge began by d~scribingthec~l11pany'so~n'.\'ebsite,by which it sought to

recruit new !BOs. The website referred to the "nearly 1.2. iJiiiion uS uoiiars" which the
international group (of which the company was a part) had paid out since its founding
in 1959. It is not suggested that this figure is incorrect. The website also referred to
the company's Rules of Conduct and Code of Ethics by which each !BO must agree
to "present... the Amway business opportunity to ... Prospects in a truthful and honest
way ...and only [make] such claims as are sanctioned in official literature". It stressed
that-
"Like any small business, it takes hard work to succeed in the Amway business,
and that requires time and commitment, especially in the beginning... "
All !BOs agreed to be bound by the Rules of Conduct. The website also warned in a
section devoted to "Training" that-
"Amway does not guarantee success in business. Use of these training tools can
assist you, but cannot guarantee your success. You should always use good
judgment in purchasing training materials. Your expenditure for training
materials should be in reasonable proportion to your earnings."
Similar warnings appeared in the company's printed promotional literature. The judge
reminded himself not to be over-influenced by such warnings.
17. The judge next turned to promotional literature published by others, referred to as
business support material or "BSM", of which the publications of two separate
s0mr8rj~~. (U()!. .TWIt .Qf. the;. Am w"Y gr\lIlP)P"Il ",9 .
f3.~itt. (YI<.)H?.
~11?]"l~~~~r~.~l
Sup~C'rt Systcffis<Ltd, !Jomprifeet ,9nimp0rtant part:. The, Gompllny',s Ril1e-§.QfG9Q9YGt
had rules regulating the use of such BSM, eg that no IBO might make representations
I The judge recorded that petitions had also been presented against Britt and Network 21 but that these "had
been the subject of arrangements between the presentation of the petitions and the hearing of the Amway
petition". I assume that those petitions had been compromised in some way.
Court of Appeal Unapproved Judgment: BERR v A1;JWA Y (UK) LTD
about earnings from that lBO's business unless the amounts were based on verifiable
personal experience. However, the judge had critical remarks about how such third
party promotions worked in practice, sometimes citing material reviewed and
approved by the company itself. Thus such third party material spoke of the
possibilities of large earnings, of how "even a few hours a week can produce
impressive results", of a testimonial from a medic who said his income "continues to
climb to replace my full professional salary", of taking steps to "secure your financial
future", of achieving lifestyle dreams. The Secretary of State's investigators (who
conducted an investigation pursuant to section 447 of the Companies Act 1985)
attended a meeting at which a presenter had spoken of the very large rewards which
could be achieved in short periods and of how "the money we get for this is fantastic
for what we do". The company's own surveys of its new IBOs' aspirations recorded
the high percentage of them who referred to the importance of "earn[ing] an
~idltiC'n?! income:. Qr ."improy[ing] . lifestyle",(Qth~rs .hovvever referredto.non-
financial considerations such as self-esteem and the opportunity to work at one's own
pace.) The judge commented that it was necessary to deal in detail with the way in
which IBOs were recruited because "it lies at the heart of the Secretary of State's case
on inherent objectionability".
18. The judge also dealt in detail with the complex bonus structure, but it is unnecessary
to go into the matter in depth. It was possible, but difficult, to earn large bonuses. The
judge summed up his findings in the following passages at paras 42/43 of his
judgment:
"42... The case for the Secretary of State is that the reality of the Amway business
is that the nature and rewards of becoming an !BO and participating in that
business are such that only a very small number of !Bas make any significant
money from their participation. In fact, the substantial majority of IBOs make no
money and indeed by reason of their payment of the registration fee [£28] and the
annual renewal fees [£18], lose money from their participation...For the period
from 2001 to 2006 (a) 95% of all bonus income was earned by just 6% of the
!Bas; and (b) 75% of all bonus income was earned by less than 1.5% of !Bas. In
2005-2006 there were 39,316 IBOs who shared a bonus pot of £3.427 million.
But of this total, 27, 906 IBO (71 %) earned no bonus at all, and 101 !Bas
(0.25%) shared £1.954 million between them. That leaves a group of 11,3091BOs
to share a bonus pot of £1.473 million. Within that category there was a group of
7,492 IBOs... who between them shared £101,400. This gave them an average
annual bonus of just over £13.50, a sum less than the annual renewal fee of £18 ...
43. The picture can be presented in a variety of ways: but it is consistent.

Between 200 I and 2006 the proportion of !Bas not earning any bonus income
i,,~id b2t""22;; 69%snd 78% !nye?r 2(1)4 1Sonly 74i) 'l tQf ?4}4:; IJ.3Qs ~~m~d
(j'V\;:>i'£10,000 by '~.vaYGfh8nUS'" In,th2t,yeQf,only 4,076 ,IBOs, earned en,OlJJ!1}".hOt1JlS
to cover the annual renewal fee: 21,266 did not even cover their most basic
Court of ApoeallJnapproved ,Judgment: BERR v AM WAY (UK) LTD
running cost from bonus payments (though there may be retail margin)? If very
modest business expenses are factored in (say £1 00 on petrol or the purchase of
BSM) the picture is even starker with only 1,820 mas making sufficient from
bonus payments to cover those expenses and 23,521 mas failing to do so. In the
period from 2000 to 2005 Chris and Sharon Farrier's bonus income ranged from
£21,495 to £7,971 and averaged £12,850. Over the same period Dr Anup Biswas
ranged from £137 to £433 abd averaged £306. These are the people whose
testimonials said respectively that they were earning "the equivalent of good
executive size income", or was deriving an income that "continue[d] to climb to
replace my full professional salary"."
19. The judge added (as "Fairness reqUireS") that tfierewere individual cases whiCh
demonstrated that the norm was not the invariable rule. Thus one IBO of only six
years standing had achieved 16th highest ranking with an income of £34,275 in
2004/5, another had achieved almost £29,000 in only three years; and there were other
(but few) similar cases.
20. However, the company of course knew what the reality was. The judge described that
reality (at para 47) in these terms -
"The existing mas effectively act as gang masters, the gang master being
rewarded under a system which rewards him or her more highly for the assembly
of a gang... than for the direct selling of the product."
He continued (at para 48):
"On the facts as I have so far found them I would have considered it just and
equitable to wind Amway up. I would have done so on a narrow ground which it
is necessary to identify."
He explained (at para 53):
"What this case has been about is the disparity between the dream that is sold to
and the reality of the opportunity that is gained by an IBO... "
2Retail margin represented the difference between a retail and wholesale price and was available even where the
180 self-consumed rather than on-sold products.
Page It
Court of Appeal Unapproved .Judgment: BERR v AMWAY(UK) LTD
21. The judge then proceeded in a central paragraph of his judgment (para 54) to set out
the main considerations which had led him to consider that the company should have
been wound up if it had still been following its old business model. Among those
considerations were the following: that the statistical evidence was compelling to
suggest not merely the possibility but the probability that many !BOs were seduced by
a dream, only to find that the reality turned out to be different from the expectation;
that it was therefore to be inferred that the disparity between expectation and
experience arose from "a failure to make a fair presentation of the actual (as opposed
to the theoretical or exceptional) chance of success"; that !BOs were "sold a dream
which in reality they have no genuine prospect of attaining"; and that the promotional
material produced by the IBO organisations or spoken to at meetings contained
substantial misrepresentations as to what was currently being achieved by !BOs or
could realistically be achieved by new recruits: this was also described as serious
fflisleprcscntatioi'is--- us-·-to- -s- kcy----p~rt -of thecC'!11pany',s . business..On _t.he,_Qth~r_hand,_
there was unchallenged evidence that over a fourteen year period not a single !BO had
ever complained to the company about the manner in which he or she had been
recruited; and the judge accepted that the material produced by the company itself
could not be categorised as containing misrepresentations of such seriousness as to
justify winding up. By a fine margin it had complied with its duty. Nevertheless, the
consequences of the making of the third party misrepresentations would still have
been visited on the company. Its own warnings, its Code of Ethics and policies on
presentations, were ineffective and cosmetic: to some extent the offending literature
had been approved by the company itself, and when it disapproved, it did not enforce
its disapproval. It bore direct responsibility for such failings, and if this was more of a
management failure than anything else, it was still one which could be criticised as a
lapse in generally accepted minimum standards of commercial behaviour and be
visited by a winding up in the public interest. As for submissions that the company
could not be blamed for what it did not know, or for the faults of independent actors,
or for failures below that of top management itself, the judge was unsympathetic. The
company could not reap the benefit of misrepresentations without paying the price: "It
permitted itself to be surrounded with a penumbra of impropriety, and took the
advantages to its business thereby gained... Running a business in such a way that it
encourages wrongdoing by others is a determining factor in the balance". The old
business model had entailed "a risk of impropriety".
22. These the judge described as "provisional holdings on part only of the evidence" (at
para 55), because he then turned to the new business model before conducting his
ultimate balancing exercise.
The new business model and the company's undertakings
23. The company put its revised business model into effect in September or October
2007. Well before that it had begun to pull its socks up, but the judge was in "no
Court of Appeal Unapproved ,Judgment: BERR v AM WAY (UK) LTD
doubt that the real spur to action was the commencement of the Secretary of State's
investigation". That investigation had begun in January 2006.
24. The company's evidence as to its new business model was, as the judge said (at para
56):
"set out in detail in the evidence filed which was fully formulated,
comprehensive, open and transparent. Amway submit and its evidence asserts that
it is capable of effective and ongoing implementation without the supervision of
either the Secretary of State or the court: but it offers undertakings to the court in
Those observations by the judge picked up an earlier passage in his judgment (at para
II) which had quoted the Secretary of State's own test for such revisions. The judge
there. said this:
"II. In my judgment the Department's officials exhibited an appropriate degree

of caution in entering into any form of negotiation with the Amway management.
However, given that the compulsory winding up of an active and established
company is a very serious step to be taken, what is necessary is that the
Department is explicit and exact as to its concerns, so as to enable the company
against whom the petition is presented (should it so choose) to prepare a revised
business model which is (to quote a letter sent by the Treasury Solicitor in this
case) "fully formulated, comprehensive, open and transparent, and capable of
effective and ongoing implementation without the supervision of either the
Secretary of State or the court". I consider that to be an accurate statement of the
standard that any revised business model must attain if it is to be worthy of
consideration at the hearing of the petition as a significant matter to be weighed in
the balance."
25. Those well-balanced and cautious comments were not attacked on this appeal by Mr
Mark Cunningham QC, who appeared for the Secretary of State: indeed, it would
have been difficult for him to have disparaged the Treasury Solicitor's own test.
Nevertheless, Mr Cunningham did submit that as a matter of principle and authority
any response to the Secretary of State's own investigations and petition was so far
from being a mitigation as to amount to a cynical aggravation; and that no
undertakings proffered which the Secretary of State was not himself willing to accept
were of any avail.
26. The judge described the effective changes accomplished by the new business model
as follows. (i) The company had recruited a senior management team, and in
particular a general manager, to assert central control and to dilute the influence on
January
Court of Appeal Unapproved .Judgment: BERR v AMWAY (UK) LTD
No permission is granted to copv or use in court
the organisation of the senior lBOs. (ii) The "retail margin" was abolished to
discourage self-consuming sales. (iii) The basic level of recruit, designated a "retail
consultant", now had a pure sales function and could not sponsor anyone to become
an lBO, now renamed an Amway Business Owner or "ABO". (iv) A retail consultant
with an established customer base could apply to become a "certified retail
consultant". To qualify, the applicant would have to undergo mandatory personal
training and complete an online certification test, aimed at ensuring a full
understanding of the Amway business model. Only a certified retail consultant could
recruit other ABOs. (v) A certified retail consultant could qualify as a "business
consultant" on reaching a defined level of income. As such he or she could take on an
enhanced role in training and supporting their downline. (vi) All BSM publications
deployed by certified retail consultants and business consultants would be rigorously
controlled, and could not be sold to generate income. (vii) Any new ABO would have
to undergoacnmpnny orientation. programme designeg tq. eliminate. any unre.alistic
expectations. (viii) No new recruitment would be permitted until the company was in
a position, after operating the new model for six months, to publish earnings
information. This is something which the US Federal Trade Commission has required
since 1979, but is not undertaken by the company's direct selling competitors in the
UK. At first the company resisted the idea that it should be required to do anything
which its competitors did not do, but at trial the offer to produce such information was
made the subject of an undertaking. Such material has now been published. Mr
Cunningham submitted that it was unsatisfactory: but in my judgment it made entirely
clear how few ABOs managed to earn large amounts, how the majority of ABOs
earned no bonus at all, and how relatively modest the average earnings of the rest
were. (ix) The initial registration fee of £28 and the annual renewal fee were no longer
payable.
27. The judge commented as follows as to this new business model:
"58. The Secretary of State did not subject the new business model to a detailed
critique, nor was any suggested deficiency in it put to any Amway witnesses
(none of whom was cross-examined). Mr Cunningham QC simply submitted that
it was not very different from the old model and that 1 could not trust the Amway
management. 1 reject the first .submission: in my judgment the model makes
radical changes, bringing into greater prominence the retail nature of the business,
eliminating the attraction of recruiting self-consumers, asserting proper control
over what is said, providing a mechanism for correcting any misstatements and
not requiring any initial financial commitment. I do not consider the second
submission open: I had been invited to accept the written Amway evidence at
face value, and I have not seen any of the intended senior management give
evidence and certainly cannot form an adverse view of them."
That is an important paragraph, but Mr Cunningham submits on this appeal that the
judge was wrong to reject both those submissions: wrong, in other words, to say that
the new business model was not subjected to a detailed critique, and wrong to say that
the Amway management could be trusted and that the contrary submission was not
open to the Secretary of State. I shall consider those submissions below.
28. The judge then proceeded to consider in detail the Secretary of State's case based on
the Walter Jacob and Supporting Link authorities to the effect that the new business
model was in effect irrelevant, and to conduct a final balancing exercise. The judge
reasoned the matter as follows (at para 61):
"In my judgment I must reach a decision on the totality of the evidence as

presented at the hearing... One aspect of the public interest that would be
promQt~d by making a wipdingll]l Qrclerj~tQ hringtollnel1cl.a c()mplJ.11.y~~i9h in
the conduct of its business failed to maintain at least the generally accepted
minimum standards of commercial behaviour. One such standard is to avoid
inviting the public to participate in trading schemes on a false and deceptive
basis.. .Insofar as Amway undertook that recruitment itself it did (on a fine
balance) comply with the law. But it was a key part of its business model... that
its existing !BOs should perform that function. In so far as it had in place
machinery to control what was said by such !BOs to members of the public
Amway failed to prevent false and deceptive descriptions being given of what its
business opportunity offered...Amway understood that this was the burden of the
petition presented by the Secretary of State... It has now taken steps ["so that no
government ever sees the need to step in again"] by asserting control (so far as it
can) over what may be said, and by seeking to correct (through an induction
programme) any false and deceptive statements that may have been made. I place
significant weight on the undertaking offered at trial to make proper income
disclosure. These proposals are of course put forward by a management team that
has failed properly to supervise the business in the past and instituted the present
reforms largely under the spur of the petition. But its present management team
has not been challenged upon any perceived deficiencies in the system or upon
any inadequacies in the team itself. I do not consider that the fact that the reforms
have only really taken place in response to the petition (though the problems that
occasioned the petition were being considered by the management before the
investigation) makes it an affront to justice to recognise them for what they are.
There remains a degree of risk to the public that Amway will not conduct its
business in a proper way: but it is not possible to eliminate all risk from
commercial activity, and it may be possible to moderate the risk. To wind up an
active lawfully trading company that now recognises and seeks to abide by the
appropriate standards of commercial probity (and has endeavoured to engage with
the Department to address any concerns of the regulator) is a serious matter: it has
serious consequences for creditors (when Amway is seeking to trade out of its
present insolvency) and for the significant number of present scheme participants
;~"~'"
Lli.... ,~"~,~,,",t!n0'7),,,,,O,'t:',,,th,,~,, 7(00) "Iho wI'sh to
,-Vu.u i .... 'oJ U / . ...., ~i' H~'" ?,·;rI~n!"'oth(':,.anrPO~f"£)nlp (rnJPf
.... ',' ~ .... .;,;. .~'''''''''''' .~~ .. ;;"":':''', ,"",~, ..',,, ''j~ ,C',> f' ,: ,:," ",,\'c.-', ",'"c~ ',',',:",,', ""~"" "",''',.,'' 'C'''",.c "0,,',, ,c, .... ,'. ~ ', __,""'",,,,,,"
continue to participate in the Amway business, and the business model itself is
that now adopted by the majority of direct selling organisations. On balance I do
not consider that the need to punish Amway for its past wrongs or the need to
deter other multilevel companies from inducing the public to become purchasers
Court of AppeallJnapproved Judgment: BERR v AMWAY (UK) LTD
and retailers of its products by misstatements requires that the serious

consequences I have identified be visited on Amway: and as a result of the
undertakings now offered (including that offered at trial) I consider a winding up
order to be disproportionate. The Secretary of State's investigation and
presentatiori of this petition are a sufficient salutary lesson to Amway and a clear
warning to its peers that if the risks inherent in the multi-level model are not
rigorously controlled then serious and expensive consequences followed."
29. Finally, the judge went on to consider the role of the proffered undertakings. The
penultimate sentence just quoted, as well as the earlier reference to the "significant
weight" that the judge placed on the undertaking relating to proper income disclosure,
trtig-nt"sl.lg-gesrthartheuildel'ta:kings'eniered'into·,thejudge"s"balallcing"excrcise'''asa
reason to refuse the petition. However, in the following passage, the judge addressed
the question of the undertakings directly. He said (at para 62):
"The Court has a discretion whether or not to make a winding up order. The
Court may simply dismiss the petition if satisfied that past wrongs have been
remedied and the management can be trusted not to permit their recurrence (even
if unconstrained by any undertakings). But the Court has power to accept
undertakings as to future conduct, and a discretion as to whether to make the
giving of undertakings a condition of dismissing the petition. The power will not
be exercised (and undertakings will be refused) if those offering them cannot be
trusted. The power to accept undertakings is likely to be exercised if that course 'is
acceptable to the Secretary of State. If the Court considers that undertakings may
be acceptable, it should nevertheless be slow to accept them if the Secretary of
State is not willing to dispose of the petition in that way: but whilst the course
may be unusual, the Court undoubtedly has power to do so if there are
countervailing factors which outweigh the Secretary of State's opposition. In the
instant case I could simply dismiss the petition: but undertakings are offered and I
see no need to spurn them even if the Secretary of State shows no enthusiasm for
their acceptance... "
30. In that passage the judge was apparently minded to dismiss the petition in any event:
but, as undertakings had been offered, he was willing to accept them rather than spurn
them, and so made them a condition of his order. The undertakings in question, set out
in his judgment and ultimately scheduled to his order as a condition of it, are as·
follows:
"LAmway wi]] maintain the. present pmhibition. on. theproQ\lction,sale . or

promotion in the United Kingdom of Business Support Materials in connection
with the Amway Business Opportunity that are not authorised and distributed by
Amway.
Court of Appeal Unapproved.Judgment: BERR v AMWAY (UK) LTD
2. Amway will not introduce a registration fee for new ABOs or a renewal fee for
existing ABOs unless either the Secretary of State has consented or, in the
absence of such consent, has obtained a declaration from the Court to the effect
that such a fee is lawful.
3. Amway will not lift its moratorium on the registration of new Amway Business
Owners ("ABOs") until it has published earnings data for the period from I
October 2007 to the date of the lifting of the moratorium in accordance with the
earnings disclosure policy set out in Schedule 2. Amway will thereafter publish
on at least an annual basis earnings data covering the preceding 12 month period
in accordance with the earnings disclosure policy. Earnings data will be included
in official literature used to promote the Amway Business Opportunity and on the
Amway website.
4. Subject to paragraph 3 above,Amway will operate and maintain an orientation

programme for all new ABOs substantially in the form described in the witness
statement of Mark Beiderwieden filed on behalf of Amway and referred to in the
Judgment of Mr Justice Norris at paragraph 57(d)."
31. Undertaking (4) was part of the new business model by the time of trial, but was
required by the judge in addition to the three undertakings proffered by the company.
In proffering its undertakings, Mr David Chivers QC, on behalf of the company,
indicated that they reflected the new business model which the company had
developed and were intended "to meet objections...which Amway has tried to glean
from the way in which the case has been put". In particular, the matter of earnings
disclosure was raised in Mr Cunningham's opening as the "key" to the petition. It was
submitted that the undertakings were not necessary, on the basis that the management
could be trusted, but they were offered in case of any doubts as to future conduct. The
judge did not express any doubts about the trustworthiness of the company's
management, indeed he had said that the contrary submission was not open to the
Secretary of State in the absence of cross-examination, but he did recognise that in the
nature of things there was an element of risk and that it was "not possible to eliminate
all risk from commercial activity", albeit it could be moderated.
Pre-trial history
32. It is necessary to say something about the discussions between the parties in the run-
Tltejudgc'·in>·his···jlidglhc.tir..·hdu·····Said··Ddth· thatthc···.. Setfetafy6fSfaf81iad
""KiliiA,,,,j ali applopIiate J"gl"e 6f(;il.llli6il in cilteriilg into any rormofnegotiiition"
but also that it was open to a company to revise its business model to attempt to meet
the gravamen of the Secretary of State's concerns, provided such a revised model met
the test which the Secretary of State, through the Treasury Solicitor, had himself put
13:21 Page 17
forward for such a revised model (at para II). There is also a costs appeal and cross-
appeal to which such matters are themselves relevant.
33. We have been shown relevant correspondence between the company's solicitors,
Eversheds, and the Treasury Solicitor. On 1 May 2007 Eversheds wrote to the
Treasury Solicitor to say that the company had made clear its intention to cooperate
with the Department and wished to discuss its concerns with it. It also said it was
willing to offer undertakings to reinforce its cooperative stance. It asked for a
meeting. On the next day the Treasury Solicitor replied to arrange a prompt meeting,
making it clear that this would be for listening only: the Department would then
reflect on what had been heard and would respond in writing. In the meantime the
Sccrct~rY"'GfStatcv~~as'prcpar(';d,'G:nthe'provisiGn'of'u ndertakil1gs;'to'adjouri'f'by
consent to the substantive hearing of the petition his application for the appointment
of a provisional liquidator.
34. Following the meeting, on 9 May 2007 the Treasury Solicitor wrote as follows:
"My client presents public interest petitions for 2 primary reasons. Firstly, to
protect the public and secondly to inform the business place so that high
standards of business practice are maintained. While your client may well be able
to put remedies in place which, ultimately, may fully protect the public in future,
this is unlikely to be sufficient to persuade my client to agree to the petition being
set aside. This is because of the second of the two reasons for presenting public
interest petitions.
The message that will be sent to the market place, should my client consent to the
setting aside of the petition on only the first reason being satisfied, is that a
company can proceed on a basis unacceptable in the public interest until such
time as it is found out and only then need to set its house in order, without risk of
being wound up. Clearly, this is not the right message to send to the market place.
Therefore, as matters stand, it is my client's intention that all 3 petitions will be
fully prosecuted, notwithstanding any remedial action your client may take in
respect of its business practices."
35. On 21 May 2007 the application for the appointment of a provisional liquidator was
adjourned by consent on agreed undertakings.
36. On 19 July 2007 Eversheds sought a further meeting between the company and the
Department to outline its future plans. That meeting took place on 8 August. On 17
August the Treasury Solicitor wrote as follows:
Page 18
Court of Appeal Unapproved Judgment: BERR v AMWA Y (UK) LTD
"It will remain my client's intention to proceed to the November Trial unless and
until you can either produce evidence and grounds demonstrating that the Petition
is misconceived or Amway formulates open proposals, for the reform of its
business, that would persuade him that, in all the circumstances, it would no
longer be in the public inter~st for Amway to be wound up. It is emphasised that
such proposals must be fully formulated, comprehensive, open and transparent,
and capable of effective and ongoing implementation without the supervision· of
either the Secretary of State or the Court. It is for you, and not us, to formulate
and advance such proposals. To date you have not done so, hence our intention to
prosecute the Petition in the manner indicated."
37. On 21 September 2007 the Treasury Solicitor confirmed that with the dropping of an
initial or annual renewal charge "there can be no lottery or unlawful trading scheme".
It also repeated its test for the formulation of a revised business scheme by reference
to its letter of 17 August, in advance of a meeting arranged for 26 September. On 25
September Eversheds wrote to the Treasury Solicitor a detailed letter setting out the
company's new business model, which was due for introduction on 1 October. On 2
October the Treasury Solicitor replied, stating that it had held a lengthy meeting with
counsel and the investigators but refusing to comment on the revised model. Instead it
said that the Secretary of State had decided to "await your evidence in defence before
commenting". In a subsequent e-mail dated 8 October the Treasury Solicitor
explained:
"My client has not yet made up his mind whether or not the new business model
is objectionable. This is why we await your formal evidence. We should then be
able to respond promptly, in an explanatory letter, prior to settling our own
evidence."
38. On 26 October the Treasury Solicitor e-mailed Eversheds abruptly: "My client will
proceed to trial with the petition". Eversheds responded with a complaint that in the
light of previous communications it was not acceptable for the Secretary of State to be
unable or unwilling to explain his position in relation to the new business model.
1.':) Uctober :wu? the treasury :;olicltor replied bye-mail as tallows:
"Whilst not concurring with your assertion that the Secretary of State is under a
present obligation to " ... explain [his] position... ", I nevertheless draw the
Court of AppealLJnapproved ,Judgment: BERR v AMWAY (UK) LTD
following points to your attention as warranting the Secretary of State proceeding

with the Petition to trial:
(a) the Secretary of State is not satisfied that Amway's new business model
constitutes a real and sufficient cessation of the offending business that is the
subject of the Petition;
(b) the Secretary of State is not satisfied, having regard to Amway's
management and the operation of the old business model, that it would be
proper or appropriate to place reliance on the management of Amway to
ensure that Amway's business would be properly run in the future;
(c) it is not the Secretary of State's function to police the undertakings that
Amway would have to give in relation to the operation of the new business
model, nor is the Secretary of State willing to assume such a function;
it-·· ~~/C'uld offend. ordinary notions. of..~what,isjJlst.:Jnd, .equitHhle,.iL,Am,way
were to escape the appropriate consequences of past misconduct by
appearing to reform itself after and only in response to, the presentation of
the Petition.
We will expand further on the continuing public interest in the winding up of

Amway both in our evidence in reply and in our written and oral submissions.
Please note that it is not the Secretary of State's function or intention to become
involved in a rolling dialogue with yourselves so as to redesigning Amway's
offending business."
40. That brief response set the tone for the trial that followed a month later, and it was the
judge's disagreement with that response which resulted in his refusal of the petition.
In essence, the e-mail was a rejection of the adequacy of the company's new business
model, without explaining what was inadequate about it, other than the comment that
the company's management could not be relied upon to run the business properly in
the future. It was suggested that the inadequacies could only be eliminated as a result
of a "rolling dialogue" which the Secretary of State was unwilling to enter upon; and
that he was equally unwilling to police the undertakings which would in any event
have to be given.
41. It may be observed that during this correspondence the Secretary of State had shifted
somewhat uneasily between two positions. One was that no remedies on the
company's part could make up for the past; the Secretary of State's role as defender
of the public interest was to be stem and censorious (see the letter of 9 May 2007).
The other was that it would listen to the company's proposals to remedy its business
such prdpdsa.ls (see Ihe· letter of l7 August allo lhe ",cillilii (jfLl .S"'j:Jtdhb",(2007).
Ultimately, the Secretary of State took his stand on the inadequacy of the new
proposals, so that even whcn sounding his censorious note (point (d) of the e-mail of
29 October 2007) its foundation was that reform was only an "appearing to reform".
Court of Appeal Unapproved ,Judgment: BERR v AMWAY (UK) LTD
The trial
42. The trial began on 26 November 2007 and lasted ten days.
43. In response to the company's evidence concerning its new business model the
Secretary of State asked Mr Luke Steadman, a chartered accountant and one of his
investigators, 10 make<l, Slipplemel)\<l,]affigayitd<l,te<!::ZO NoYemper 2007.. H isJhis .that
Mr Cunningham relied on for gainsaying the judge's finding that there had been no
detailed critique of the new busines.s model. The court was asked to read it in advance
of the appeal hearing, but was not taken to it in any sustained way in order to show
the judge to have been mistaken. In my judgment, this affidavit does not amount to a
detailed critique of the new business model. It emphasises how much of the business
remained the same, but that would not be surprising about an overall account of the
multi-level direct selling of personal and home care products. Its response to the new
model, where relevant, was on the whole to say that the changes may help but that it
was not possible to evaluate the company's enforcement going forward. It failed to
focus, as the judge had to and did, on what was key to the Secretary of State's
complaint and what the company had done and proposed to do to address those
concerns in its new business model. Mr Cunningham's opening skeleton argument at
trial was to much the same effect. There was a complaint that the business and the
arrangements were essentially the same, while at the same time an acknowledgment
that "there have been some changes and reforms" some of which "are positive":
however, despite the company's senior management recognising their historic
shortcomings with regard to enforcement, there remained a serious risk of uncertainty
as to the future. It was not put so much in terms of lack of trust, more a matter of
uncertainty. The judge, however, was satisfied that the new model "makes radical
changes, bringing into greater prominence the retail nature of the business,
eliminating the attraction of recruiting self-consumers, asserting proper control over
what is said, providing a mechanism for correcting any misstatements and not
requiring any initial financial commitment" (at para 58). Mr Cunningham did not seek
to persuade us that the judge was wrong in those conclusions. I do not see how this
court is in a position to say that he was wrong. It will be recalled that the company's
witnesses were not cross-examined.
44.' On the second day of trial the judge had to resolve an issue concerning relevant
SteaJ:Iman~s,.supplemental. affidavit.and-,to,the<\vitness,·statements,of,tvi/o··ncv1
witnesses for the Secretary of State, where they sought to present evidence of
complaints made against Amway world-wide. One witness, Mr Scheibeler, had
written a book describing himself as a vocal critic of the Amway business model. The
other, Mr Swedlund, was an attorney acting for !Bas who had commenced various
actions in the United States. The Secretary of State had no case that there was a body
of justified complaints made against the company. He did not seek to establish the
substance of the complaints about which he now wished to give evidence. He merely
sought to balance what he took to be the company's case that it had a reputation as a
responsible and successful company. The judge said that in general evidence as to
reputation was not admissible in a civil case. He excluded the disputed evidence on
two principal grounds: the first was that reputation was not relevant to the
establishment of a civil wrong; the second was that Mr Chivers explained that the
company did not seek itself positively to give evidence of a reputation for integrity
(but it did not accept that it was not entitled to such a reputation). There was a third
subsidiary ground that the Secretary of State's proposed material was all hearsay in
connection with which the procedural requirements had not been complied with.
45. At this appeal Mr Cunningham has referred to this interim judgment of 27 November
2007 (which the Secretary of State did not appeal) as undermining the judge's
reliance, in the absence of any reference to his interim judgment, on the absence of
cross-examination of the company's witnesses at trial. Mr Cunningham submitted that
such reliance was a serious procedural irregularity which subverted the safety of the
judge's conclusions.
46. The decision not to cross-examine the company's witnesses was taken after the close
of the Secretary of State's case on the fourth day of trial. The decision, which was
unexplained, followed a challenge put down by Mr Chivers on the third day of trial,
when he complained about Mr Cunningham's description of one of the company's
witnesses' evidence as "weasel words". Mr Chivers said that it would have been
better if such language had awaited cross-examination, which was then expected. It
was not to be.
47. In my judgment, the matters in issue on the interim judgment and the question of trust
in the company's senior management, all of whom gave evidence and made
themselves available for cross-examination, were of a different order. As to the first,
the judge was unwilling to have the substantive matters for debate at trial lost under a
welter of irrelevant, hearsay evidence of unsubstantiated complaints. If that meant that
the company was itself to be (voluntarily) restricted as to what it could say. for itself
on the matter of reputation, so much the better. That led to the refinement of the
company's pleaded case and evidence. That, however, did nothing to remove or
undermine the positive evidence that the company's witnesses did put forward,
especially about accepting responsibility for past failings and promoting the new
business model. All that evidence went unchallenged. The judge was justified in his
in the company's past misconduct to permit that submission. But I do think that such a
submission was not effectively and realistically open in the absence of any cross-
examination of the company's witnesses. There was a hollowness at the heart of the
Secretary of State's opposition to the new business model. He came increasingly to
Court of Appeal Unapproved ,Judgment: BERR v AMWAY (UK) LTD
rely, as he did particularly in this appeal, on an approach in principle that said:

winding up is the necessary consequence of past misconduct.
48. A third complaint about the judge's conduct of the trial was also connected with the
subject of the undertakings. Mr Cunningham submitted that the judge had stopped
him in the course of his closing speech when he was making the point that the petition
must either be granted or refused, but that there was no half-way house in a refusal
based on the taking of undertakings. Mr Cunningham relied on the following
exchange:
"~~!},·Justic(],~".rorrfs:"Iha:ve gottheclear'/ie\~l,thattheSecretaryofState,does,not
want undertakings and that the choice with which I am to be faced is either to
wind the company up or dismiss the petition, there is no middle way.
Mr Cunningham: I shall move on."
49. I have considered the passage in question carefully, but in my judgment the judge was
merely indicating that he had Mr Cunningham's submission: he was not indicating
that he agreed with it. On further consideration, Mr Cunningham appeared inclined to
accept that that was at least a possible interpretation of the passage and that he might
have misunderstood the position. He accepted that he could not rest on this argument
by itself; but he submitted that, even ifhe had misunderstood this passage as ajudicial
indication in his favour, it might explain how and why the judge went wrong in this
matter of the undertakings. As a result, the judge did not unfortunately have the help
which he, Mr Cunningham, had been prepared to give by way of further submissions
but which he had desisted from.
The costs judgment and the judge's permission to appeal
50. Following final judgment, the judge heard argument about costs and permission to
appeal. What he said then throws further light on Mr Cunningham's submission that
the giving of the undertakings was vital to the judge's decision to refuse the petition.
H!sdeci1=6on oncosts (see h~sj !uigment 9nd·.. order givenon'9June2008)'Nasto,?uake

the company pay the Secretary of State's costs down to 20 November 2007 and
thereafter to make the Secretary of State pay the company's costs. On this appeal the
Secretary of State submits that he should have all the costs of the petition. The
Court of AppeallJnapproved .Judgment: BERR v AMWAY (UK) LTD
company accepts the essential justice of the judge's split order on costs, but had
contended for an earlier date, and does so again by its cross-appeal.
52. The argument before the judge on behalf of the company, renewed in its cross-appeal,
was that the Secretary of State should pay the company's costs from 3 October 2007.
That date was submitted to be a reasonable period (one week) after the company had
written to the Secretary of State on 25 September setting out in detail its new business
model and had met with the Department on 26 September. It will be recalled that the
Treasury Solicitor had replied (albeit it was only a holding reply) on 2 October. The
Secretary of State's submission was and is that he should have the whole of his costs
both as a salutary warning and deterrent against the past misconduct and because it
W~$ $ubmitted .that it was. only the \!lldert~\<.ing()njnc.011lC qisc;losure offereclo.n the
last day of trial which gave rise to the judge's ultimate decision in the company's
favour.
53. What is important for present purposes are the judge's reasons for rejecting the
Secretary of State's argument on costs. As to the first limb of that argument the judge
said as follows:
"I agree that it is not the Secretary' of State's function to act as an approved
licensor of business models but, as I pointed out in paragraph 11 of my judgment,
the compulsory winding-up of an active and established company is a very
serious step and it is important that the department should be explicit and exact as
to its concerns so as to enable the company against whom the petition is presented
to prepare a revised business model. Amway prepared a revised business model
based on the concerns as set out in the Secretary of State's initial
evidence... Whilst it is undoubtedly important to reinforce the regulatory arm of
the Secretary of State, it is equally important not to discourage companies from
seeking to respond to the criticisms in a coherent and effective way in an
endeavour to maintain their businesses, which in this case was of long
standing..."
54. As to the second limb of the argument relating to the undertakings, the judge pointed
out that the company had said that it had been willing to offer undertakings in an
initial letter of 1 May 2007. It had been a fundamental part of the company's approach
to the petition from the outset. The undertakings, although offered in their final form
in the course of Mr Chivers' final speech, were to operate a new business model
"In substance, I consider that the petItIon was determined on the basis of
Amway's [new] business model as set out in its evidence and that evidence could
Court of AppeallJnapproved Judgment: BERR v AM WAY (UK) LTD
have been and was considered on behalf of the Secretary of State by 20

November."
55. It seems to me that the judge's conclusion (that the petition was determined on the
basis of the company's new business model) was correct and, what is more, reflected
and is confirmed by the Secretary of State's own reaction to that business model as
expressed in the Treasury solicitor's e-mail dated 29 October 2007 (see at paras 39141
above). In other words, what was determinative for the judge was the new business
model, not the undertakings. His decision on a split order for costs reflected that
judgment. I leave on one side for the moment the precise question of how costs should
have been allocated.
56. The basis of the judge's judgment was revisited later on the same day, 9 June 2008,
when the judge gave a brief ruling on the Secretary of State's application for
permission to appeal. He granted pennission. As to the Secretary of State's first
ground of appeal, whereby the judge was said to have made an "error of law in failing
to follow the guidance set out in Walter Jacob ... and so accepted undertakings where
that course was opposed by the Secretary of State", the judge said as follows:
"Although in the course of my judgment I endeavoured to make clear that on the

evidence, as I found it, I could simply have dismissed the petition but instead
decided to accept the offered undertakings rather than spurn them, I do not think
that I can safely regard the grounds of appeal on this head as so without merit that
they fail the threshold test for pennission."
Discussion
57. In the course of this appeal Mr Cunningham's submissions have somewhat changed.
His original three grounds of appeal were (i) that on his findings of fact, the judge
erred in law, alternatively in the exercise of his discretion, in not winding the
company up because of its past misconduct; (ii) that the judge's decision to dismiss
the petition on the basis of the undertakings offered to the court was wrong in law or a
wrong exercise in discretion; and (iii) that his decision was unjust on the basis of three
serious procedural irregularities, namely (a) his incorrect holding that the Secretary of
State did not subject the company's new business model to a detailed critique; (b) his
trustth0····cornpany's·:manugciI1crit;·al1d(iii) ··'hls···ifH.lidtlI61tllf"I'v1i"CUtiliirigifam.}stinai
speech that he need not be addressed on the question of undertakings.
Court of AppeallJnapproved .Judgment: BERR v AM WAY (UK) LTD
58. In advancing this appeal, however, Mr Cunningham understandably felt himself

compelled to accept that his criticisms of the judge were essentially founded in errors
in the exercise of the court's discretion. He conceded that even in the light of the
authorities he chiefly relied upon the judge had a discretion in the light of changed
circumstances to refuse to wind up a company which had been guilty of past
misconduct which by itself would have justified a winding up; and also had a
discretion to accept undertakings which the Secretary of State declined to accept.
However, his burden was that, save possibly in an exceptional case, it was wrong in
principle to exercise the court's discretion in favour of the company, and that the
judge's decision was aberrant. In effect his submission was that a company which had
once been guilty of past misconduct which would have made it just and equitable for
the court to wind it up in the public interest must necessarily be wound up, despite the
adoption of a new business model and even if such a business could be sold to a new
c~m~par~y.This"" £0 !1oyved;; he",sunmitted; from", the, ,need,. tQprot~ct the",pllhliG,hy
deterrence: although he did not use the phrase, he might have said pour encourager
les aulres. That was, however, the burden of the Treasury Solicitor's letter dated 9
May 2007, which spoke of the "right message to send to the market place" and
contemplated that even "remedies... which, ultimately, may fully protect the public in
future" would not deter the Secretary of State from his petition. As the appeal went
on, as indicated in Mr Cunningham's powerful reply, his burden was that the conduct
of the company under the old business model had been so bad, on the findings of the
judge himself, as to put out of the question any possibility of a court, acting properly,
refusing the petition.
59. As for the undertakings, Mr Cunningham submitted that they were critical to the
judge's decision not to wind up the company, and cited the language admittedly found
in the judgment (and the order) which (a) made the undertakings a condition of the
judge's decision, (b) spoke of the undertaking about income disclosure as carrying
substantial weight with him, and (c) also said that even though future risks could not
be eliminated they could be moderated by the taking of undertakings. That showed
that the judge did not, at any rate fully, proceed on the basis that he trusted the
company, whatever he said about a submission to the contrary not being open. In the
light of Brightman J's and Sir Andrew Morritt V-C's dicta, it was wrong in principle
to burden the Secretary of State with policing undertakings which he was unwilling to
accept.
60. In this last connection, Mr Cunningham often sounded as though the Secretary of
State's concern was that his Department lacked the resources to follow up on such
undertakings. The court, he submitted, should be wary about imposing obligations on
the Department which it lacked the resources to vindicate. The flood-gates were
61. The Secretary of State's third ground was no longer put forward as a separate ground
in itself, but rather as supporting the other two grounds.
Court of Appeal Unapproved ,Judgment: IlERR v AMWAY (UK) LTD
62. Mr Cunningham's excellent advocacy, albeit matched by Mr Chivers, did not

however make a compelling case. I would seek to put my disagreement with his
submissions as follows.
63. There is no disagreement as to the law to be applied, only as to its application. Mr

Cunningham emphasised the seriousness of the findings made against the company
with respect to its old business model, and it is true that they were serious enough to
lead the judge to make the provisional finding that it would have been just and
equitable to wind up the company if matters had stopped there. However, I do not
~"ree
v····· .'thB! thM , is the
. end of the. storY.
.. . All
..
~... . . . . . . , even W(1!t(1r .!(1cob...itself.
the.c3ses. , ,
emphasise that matters have to be looked at as at the time of the hearing of the
petition and as a whole. By that time in this case the company had responded, openly
and radically as the judge found, to the concerns identified by the Secretary of State.
64. This case is in truth quite unlike Walter Jacob. There the defendant company was a
dishonest dealer in securities, which had been in existence for only three years when
the DTI took an interest in it, as a result of FIMBRA passing to it certain
correspondence. It had a sole director and all but one of its shares were held by him.
The thrust of the DTI's case against it, upheld by the court, was that the dealer had
been preying on the public by advising clients to invest in American companies of
dubious value, putting forward investment advice in a way that was misleading in that
it gave the impression that it was giving disinterested advice on shares whereas it was
the vendor of the shares, and failing to disclose its relationship with the American
companies concerned or the fact that their shares could not be freely traded. As a
result it had lost its FIMBRA licence and therefore had necessarily ceased business.
As such, the dealer's continued existence was of no value or interest to anyone, even
if for reasons of their own its proprietors preferred the petition to be refused rather
than granted. That was the cesser of business which the dealer relied on as a reason
for the court to dismiss the petition, and it can be of no surprise whatsoever that this
court spoke disparagingly of the submission that the mere cesser of business was the
critical fact in the case. As it is, Nicholls LJ said it was "an important factor to be
taken into account": but there could be no doubt in that case that "it would offend
ordinary notions of what is just and equitable that, by ceasing to trade on becoming
aware that the net was closing around it, a company which has misconducted itself on
the securities market can thereby enable itself to remain in being despite its previous
history" (at 360g). I fully agree that the importance of maintaining acceptable
standards of commercial dealing, of deterrence, of encouraging others, or of sending a
message to the rnarket place, as well as of the significance of the court itself
simply unrealistic and unjust to find in such considerations and in the dicta of that
case an overriding imperative in favour of winding up, however much the
circumstances of the defendant company, its business, and its reactions to the
Secretary of State's concerns may differ from the facts of that case. That is simply to
Court of Appeal Unapproved Judgment: BERR v AM WAY (UK) LTD
abandon the exercise of discretion as to what is just and equitable in favour of a

Procrustean bed.
65. In my judgment the present case is quite unlike that of the dishonest dealer in
securities. Here the company was part of an international group which had been in
business for a lengthy period of time. Amway's business in the United Kingdom had
existed for some thirty years. It had conducted a lawful and substantial business, but
had failed to control and supervise its !BOs and their recruitment activities as it
should have done. It had not simply ceased business as a result of the Secretary of
State's investigation, but had addressed itself to the concerns identified. Even though
that was in large part a reaction to the Secretary of State's interest, it was not entirely
so~",for,Jhe.,Gompanyh3d.beg1!n",toJoQktoitsresp0nsibiEties-even"before,it-'~.V~3
investigated. The judge did not accept the Secretary of State's submission that the
new business model was just a cynical and diversionary exercise. On the contrary, the
judge described its revisions as amounting to material and radical changes and its
evidence about them as "fully formulated, comprehensive, open and transparent". The
company's witnesses were not cross-examined on their evidence about these matters
nor as to their sincerity and credibility in adopting and prosecuting their new model.
As the judge said: "To wind up an active lawfully trading company that now
recognises and seeks to abide by the appropriate standards of commercial probity (and
has endeavoured to engage with the Department to address any concerns for the
regulator) is a serious matter" (at para 61). The new business model "is that now
adopted by the majority of direct selling organisations" (ibid).
66. Moreover, the submission now advanced has been imposed on the Secretary of State
by his failure at trial to persuade the judge that the new business model was an
inadequate exercise in appearances (see the Treasury Solicitor's e-mail of 29 October
2007 cited at para 39 above). That after all was the dominant line on the merits which
the Secretary of State had adopted (even if he had earlier espoused the theme on
which Mr Cunningham has now fallen back, namely that winding up was the
necessary consequence of past misconduct, however successful a new business model
might be - see the Treasury Solicitor's letter of9 May 2007, cited at para 34 above).
It is not effectively open on the judge's findings for the Secretary of State on this
appeal to say any longer that the new business model fails as an inadequate exercise
in appearances. Therefore, a rule of law, even if modified into a binding principle of
discretion, must be adopted to the effect that past misconduct puts the company out of
court. Alternatively, past misconduct must be represented as being so bad as to
demand the application of that rule of law or principle of discretion.
(,7 find l1othino,

"~ (;.,.:>n __ "'''''''''''''''''-
I"",,,(-1.."',,, 1n thp. hl1t:lrUp '''C''''';''~'_'
·" .. """",''-''''''''5--'''-''''-,,, """'.'-'-''''----'''''''''_'_;''''__
0fnHtb{',!":t;r:>:a~nfh,~f:C'\~·,~<+1"'I\"",,,,,,,",,,,-,-,:,,ld,!'O""'-'2'·ll""~'p·o,"'~f""''''t·'I'"'r;.-
'--'''- _.'~;' •• :' ..,i'."~'''_'''''' Y"'"~' v~ ... v ... '"' ~.;) ",vu. ...... "p it b..•
Secretary of State's principal ground of appeal to that effect. I have already referred to
the Secretary of State's linchpin case of Walter Jacob. In Re Secure & Provider pic
[1992] BCC 405 Hoffmann J refused to grant the petition: exaggerated and wrong
Court of Appeal Unapproved ,Judgment: BERR v AMWAY (UK) LTO
misrepresentations had been made but in good faith and the allegations of fraud in the
petition were not made out. Hoffmann J concluded (at 4140):
"I think it would be unjust because it would be a grossly disproportionate

response to the errors which have been proved against (and admitted by) Mr
Tyzack. Counsel for Mr Tyzack offered a number of undertakings as to how the
company's business would be conducted if it was not wound up, but the DTI
indicated unwillingness to accept any undertakings. They invited me to make an
all-or-nothing decision: the company should either be wound up or the petition
dismissed. I have no difficulty in choosing the latter course."
68. In Re Senator Hanseatische [1996] 2 BCLC 562 (CA) the defendant company invited
the public to become members of the "Titan Business Club" at a cost of £2,500. The
club was in reality a "snowball" form of arrangement whereby a member only
received a return on his investment if he recruited new members to the club. As such
the scheme was bound to fail in the end, and was merely a device to enable a small
number .of early .recruits to make large profits at the expense of the much larger
number of persons recruited later. It had no other business purpose or virtue and was
moreover an illegal lottery. As a scheme it was described as "pernicious". It was
wound up.
69. Re Alpha Club (UK) Ltd [2002] EWHC 884 (Ch), [2002] 2 BCLC 612 (John Jarvis
QC) was another similar pyramid selling scheme. The club membership here cost
£2,650. It too was described as pernicious, and was also held to be illegal both as a
lottery and as an unlawful trading scheme. It was wound up.
70. In Re equity & Provident Ltd [2002] EWHC 186 (Ch), [2002] 2 BCLC 78 (Patten J)
the defendant company sold on-line motor vehicle warranties which did not oblige it
to pay claims. The terms of the warranty were not visible on the company's website.
The company was only a few years old and had a single director. He was found to
have been devious and dishonest and to have been willing to say or do anything to
ward off the enquiries of the regulatory authorities. The only thing in the company's
favour was that as a result of those enquiries its website had been restructured so as to
make its warranty clearly visible there. Having considered Walter Jacob Patten J
concluded as follows (at 102):
company's current business practice the balance is tipped in favour of liquidation

by a combination of two other factors: the quite unacceptable and deliberate
refusal of the company through Mr Ohassemian to co-operate with the DTI
Court of Appeal Unapproved ,Judgment: BERR v AM WAY (UK) LTD
investigation and the fact that no reliance can be placed on Mr Ghassemian to

ensure that the business of the company is properly run in the future."
71. In Re Addcom (UK) Limited (unreported, 31 July 2002, Anthony Mann QC) the
Secretary of State sought to wind up three companies who had "traded on the back of
a misunderstanding of advertisers as to the nature and destination of the moneys they
were paying...this misleading was known to and intended by the directors" (at para
45). The deputy judge ordered the winding up of two of those companies, saying that
their business was "being run on the back of a fundamental misrepresentation of
falsehood"). That fundamental misrepresentation was that the advertisers were
making a contribution to charity. However, in the case of Addcom, the deputy judge,
•• ,h.",. A.:_"' +"'."t .t :....,...,.."".l.£. _ •• :~ __..:,_:_.u_., ·.1 ,.c rrr .1 T " 1 1 1... (' ,., ,~ , , ".
."'uv ...... u:VVL'-'U .l.lUU" .... u. 1'1lU.... lpuHy uy rruiietJU'CUo,' UllllSeH raIst:u lne quesnon or
undertakings in this passage:
"48. The only reason that I hesitate in the case of Addcom is that Addcom has a
very significant part of its business which is not affected by the same vice of the
exploitation of charitable instincts. If I were to wind Addcom up then that
business would perish too. On one level it might be said that that would be
just. .. However, provided that the unjustifiable business and business practices
can be stopped, it seems to me that it would be disproportionate in Addcom' s
case to wind it up. I therefore propose to invite the parties to agree, if they can, a
form of undertaking which will bring about the cesser of Addcom' s present
support advertising business in the case of charities and the misleading of
advertisers. If there is a dispute as to the form of undertaking I will, if necessary,
rule on whether it is sufficient. When I canvassed the possibility of this course of
action in argument, Mr Green pointed out that the policing of the undertaking
would or might present problems. I can see that, but those problems are not
sufficient to deter me from this course if sufficiently clear undertakings can be
agreed. I can envisage that a form of undertaking might be difficult, and if it turns
out to be too difficult then winding up will be inevitable, because in the absence
of undertakings I will certainly wind up Addcom, but I would wish Addcom to
have an opportunity of saving itself."
72. In "the event Addcom was not wound up. In Re Supporting Link Sir Andrew Morritt
V-C treated Re Addcom as a case ("only one case") where the court accepted
undertakings instead of ordering winding-up "where that course has been opposed by
the Secretary of State" (at [54]). I think that correctly expresses the essence of the
matter, although it may be that in form the undertakings were ultimately agreed.
~.~~s~9~~ntl~ .t?~~~~PP.9rtinfi fi/1.6 . essyl1til11jx tDy"amY()lItc Prtl e... ()~('JlIT",9. i·nHd!
lJavies (see at paras 12 above al1<1.7~ bylpW). .. ..
73. Re Supporting Link Alliance [2004] EWHC 523 (Ch), [2004] 2 BCLC 486 (Sir
Andrew Morritt V-C) concerned a business which had been incorporated only in
No permission is granted to copy or usc in court
September 2000 which used cold-calling telephone techniques to sell advertising

space in its free publications (which were found to be of dubious value) on the basis
that a portion of the cost of the advertising would be donated to charity. This was in
breach of the Charitable Institutions (Fund-Raising) Regulations 1994 and the
Telecommunications (Data Protection and Privacy) Regulations 1999 and involved
scripted misrepresentations. Only I % of turnover was donated to charity. The
defendant company's witnesses were heavily criticised on their evidence. Moreover,
the principal director, a Mr Simister, had deliberately sought to mislead the
investigators by evasive and contradictory replies. The court was nevertheless asked
to refuse the petition to wind up on the basis of undertakings as to the future conduct
of the company. This was the context in which the Vice-Chancellor reviewed the
jurisprudence in relation to the giving of undertakings starting with Re Bamford (see
at [54]-[58]). That context was summed up in the following paragraphs at the end of
the, Vi~'?-Cha!!/~e!!or' £judg~~~ent:
"[66] I am unable to accept either those submissions or the undertakings. The

business of the company was founded and continued on the basis of deception. If,
in accordance with the undertakings offered, the deception is removed it seems
unlikely that the company would have any worthwhile business to carryon.
Further the extent and nature of the undertakings and the past conduct of Mr
Simister are such that it would be necessary for the Secretary of State, through his
officers, to monitor due performance of the undertakings and to supervise the
future conduct of the company's business. That is not his or their function.
[67] The matters to which I have referred show, in my judgment, that it is just and
equitable that the company should be wound up. The acceptance of undertakings
from the company or Mr Simister instead of making that order would be an
abdication, not an exercise, of the court's jurisdiction."
74. In the light of Re Addcom, where the business in question was of a similar nature
although some of the surrounding factors were plainly different, the Vice-Chancellor
may have been particularly concerned to give expression tt? the learning of Re
Bamford: see the opening sentences of [55]. However, these cases demonstrate how
the qualifications built into the relevant dicta reflect the surrounding circumstances in
which the individual cases were decided.
75. Secretary ofState/or Trade and Industry v. Bell Davies Trading Ltd [2005] I BCLC
5 I 6 concerned a business which aggregated multiple applications for licences to
i!Il~o~ f~~t'\l~ar an~.~~ralJ1i~s fr~lJ1Shin~ i?t? ~h~ r::~~?P~~ S?lJ1l1Ju~it~:!S.~Y!l<ie
,i\c\"i"tcu 1'71~.UIl~ . r"~trl~tlO~. or In~ ..EC legislation, .th~. ctete11ct!lnt c9rnp!llJi~s
recruiteu rnemoers ot the pUbhc to own quota companies which applied for the
licences. The legal issue was whether the defendant companies had "control" of the
quota companies. David Richards 1 and again on appeal this court decided that issue
against the defendant companies. Therefore the business concerned was in breach of
EC Regulations and unlawful. Nevertheless David Richards 1 was prepared to decline
Court of Appeal Unapproved .Judgment: HERR v AMWA Y (UK) LTD
to make winding-up orders, taking the view that the activities did not involve
deliberate wrongdoing, that winding up would adversely affect the defendant
companies' other business activities and that, if the unlawful scheme ceased, winding
up would become unnecessary, provided that the defendant companies would give
undertakings to desist from their scheme. This those companies did, albeit only
because they were required to do so, and it was accepted by the Secretary of State and
by this court that in those circumstances the giving of those undertakings was not a
voluntary act which prevented an appeal by those companies. That appeal included
the ground that the judge had erred in making the dismissal of the petitions
conditional on the undertakings. In this case therefore it was the defendant companies
which were relying on the jurisprudence relating to undertakings. The Secretary of
State, although he had failed to achieve the windings up that he had sought and had
had the matter of undertakings imposed on him in this way, had ultimately rested
con!ent, 'w,ith !1-'..ej~dge's,crder; In{his GGnGe,;,thG'0'Utc0rn.e""v~v-asi'atherllke'iheAddcutit
case. That was the context in which Mummery LJ set out the principles referred to
above (at para 12). Bell Davies again illustrates how diverse can be the circumstances,
and how subtle can be the considerations, which the court must balance in its overall
pursuit of a just and equitable solution. It will be recalled that in his judgment
Mummery LJ, who has had great experience of this jurisdiction, said that in the
exercise of his discretion a judge is entitled "to dismiss a petition on undertakings,
even if that course is opposed by the Secretary of State, although that will be
unusual".
76. Finally, in Re Abacrombie & Co [2008) EWHC 2520 (Ch) (unreported, 23 October
2008) David Richards J wound up the defendant company which had been
incorporated in 2002 and promoted itself as insolvency and bankruptcy experts. The
judge found that the arrangements which the company advised brought no benefit to
either clients or creditors, but were detrimental to the interests of both and subverted
the proper functioning of the law and procedures of bankruptcy. The judge also found
dishonesty in the use of sham and back-dated documents. The taking of excessive fees
also subverted the proper administration of the debtors' bankruptcy. There was also a
breach of section 221 of the Companies Act 1985 in the failure to maintain adequate
accounting reCords. That was the context in which the company, through its director,
Mr Buchanan, who had ultimate control of the company and represented it in court,
nevertheless was willing to offer undertakings as to the future conduct ofthe business.
Not surprisingly the Secretary of State was unwilling to accept such undertakings, and
the judge gave the offer short shrift, citing Re Bamford, Re Supporting Link and Bell
Davies for the proposition that "Unless acceptable to the Secretary ofState... it will be
an unusual case where the giving of undertakings will be an appropriate alternative to
a winding-up order" (at para 63). It was sufficient for the judge simply to observe: "It
would not be appropriate in this case" (ibid).
77. my judgment, this review of the authorities demonstrates that the use which the
Secretary of State seeks to make of admittedly important dicta in leading cases
nevertheless does insufficient justice to the qualifications built into them, to the
factual contexts of those cases, and to the individual circumstances of this particular
Court of Appeallinapproved .Judgment: BERR v AM WAY (UK) LTD
case. This is indeed an unusual case. It is quite unlike the typical example of a newly
incorporated business whose raison d'etre is to defraud the public and the dishonesty
of whose controlling and often sole director is carried forward into the investigation
and trial. Moreover, those are the cases which reach trial. The truly typical case, and
as I understand the matter (from Mr Cunningham himself) the great bulk of cases,
simply go by default. In this case, the business is of long standing and is currently
being operated on a model which represents the industry standard, indeed, in the
matter of earnings disclosure goes beyond the industry standard. Its fault, serious as it
undoubtedly was and deserving of winding up if matters had stopped there, was
essentially that of a failure to control rather than that of deliberate wrongdoing or
dishonesty. The company admitted its fault, while resisting winding up. Their
management engaged with the Department in seeking solutions to the problem. They
were not discouraged in doing so, and the judge found that their proposals for change
metJh~" t~stwhichjhe"Sec:ret3ry, of. State "irnposed,opJhem", (4Jthough,itis,not, ?"
matter which the judge himself mentioned, we have been shown the unchallenged
evidence in which the company's director of finance spoke to the itemised costs
totalling about £5 million (excluding legal costs) which the company had devoted to
its new business model and its relaunch.) The judge accepted that the senior
management could be trusted in the operation of the company's new business model.
The Secretary of State had declined to cross-examine them on their evidence. The
undertakings offered were not simply as to the future conduct of the company, but as
to the continuation of its present reformed conduct. (That conduct is now more than a
further year down the line, and there is no new complaint against the company.)
78. Mr Cunningham'S building blocks have not supported him. For the reasons given
earlier in this judgment where I have dealt with each of the matters relied upon and
have reviewed the judge's own findings and reasons, I do not accept that the judge
underestimated the seriousness of the company's past misconduct nor do I accept Mr
Cunningham's categorisation of it as so bad as to be irremediable. I do not accept that
the judge was wrong to say that the new business model had not been subjected to a
detailed critique. I consider that the judge was entitled to find that the Secretary of
State was not in a position to say that the company's senior management, who had
given, as the judge observed, fully formulated, comprehensive, open and transparent
evidence concerning the revisions to the business but had not been cross-examined,
could not be trusted for the future; and was also entitled to say that he could not form
an adverse view of them without hearing them cross-examined.
79. Nor do I accept that Mr Cunningham was prevented from making any submissions he
wanted about the allegedly unsatisfactory nature of the undertakings offered. The
judge certainly had Mr Cunningham's point that, save in an unusual case, a petition to
was himself unwilling to accept. In any event, I do not agree that the judge would
have granted the peti,tion but for the undertakings. I consider that he would have
refused the petition even without the undertakings, but was unwilling to spurn
undertakings which were offered. He clearly considered that such undertakings met
Court of Appeal Unapproved .Judgment: BERR v AM WAY (UK) LTD
the Secretary of State's own standard of being capable in essence of effective and
ongoing implementation without the supervision of either the Secretary of State or the
court. No doubt if that view was wrong we would have heard of it, even if, as Mr
Cunningham put the matter to the court, the Secretary of State proceeds not
proactively but in reaction to complaint. I consider that the judge was entitled in this
exceptional case to think that the proof was in the pudding of the new business model,
which had been put into operation, and to regard the undertakings as being, as it were,
icing on the cake. That was why he attached importance to the undertaking as to the
publication of earnings information, because that could not be assembled and
published until spring 2008. It has now been published and we have seen it. It seems
to me to be in any event useful, where a petition will be refused, following the
balancing exercise, on the basis of a critical change of circumstances since the time of
the past misconduct, that the essential elements of those changed circumstances
should.. . h~ ... identified . and . . pJRced.squ::.re!y, :It ·the-··respcBsibility· of"'thc'surviving
company and its proprietors or managers by means of clearly defined undertakings.
There seems in any event to be no harm in that.
80. I do not intend in any way at all to detract from the observations of previous judges
about the dangers of imposing the policing of undertakings given by delinquent
companies on a Secretary of State who has no obligation to compromise his petition
on terms which do not seem acceptable to him. Nevertheless, where exceptionally a
judge considers that undertakings can perform a useful role, it seems to me that there
is nothing in past jurisprudence to prevent a judge from accepting them, even if the
Secretary of State does not consent, or, as in Addcom and again in Bell Davies, would
not have consented but for the court's own intervention. Those of course were more
difficult cases for the defendant companies, for the idea about undertakings carne
from the court and not from those companies and those judges made it clear that in the
absence of such undertakings it would have proceeded to wind up the companies
concerned. Nor has Mr Cunningham told us that, if unfortunately we were against his
appeal, he would ask us to discharge the undertakings which have been given in this
case.
81. In sum, I do not consider that Mr Cunningham has identified any error of law or
principle, nor has he attempted in the event to identify any error in the balancing
exercise, that is to say in the exercise of discretion, to be found in the judge's
judgment. On the contrary, I consider that the judge has approached his fact finding
assessment and his balancing exercise with shrewdness and fairness.
. 82. In conclusion.. I
review.
',." of
". the .. '1.~_etH3
. .._ ,.,-", J hi l;:t()rip~.
, "., ' ,,,.,,, Af
-, . ,,, thp. -r..tho!,
,-',.<:.'.
..c',. __ '..c f'!!!th",,",, it l··0f?"'. . ,,,,,J:"'
~~_ ..- h h . n.. ~·~ ..:0:. -1~'c,f>'·"''':~''''''~·<2·'·:·1·1·'·:'l'·!1··,~···-lo·u··"1·10"'1~""
.1-' ,,,,,,..,,,d. v Vlv U 1 1";'; ....
shows that that is so. They also show the dangers and difficulties of trying to put into
any single straightjacket the philosophy of section 124A petitions. Of course, the
Secretary of State seeks to act in the public interest: and the court will continue to be
conscious of the need to maintain and vindicate appropriate business standards, to
Court of ApnealUnapprowd .Judgment: BERR v AMWAY (UK) LTD
deter other wrongdoers, and to express its disapproval of dishonesty and other
misconduct which would make it just and equitable to wind up companies, and to do
so despite late and inadequate protestations of change from unreliable and
untrustworthy owners, directors and managers. However, in my judgment the judge's
solution in this case has not been in breach of that jurisprudence, but in fulfilment of
it. I would therefore dismiss this appeal on the merits.
Costs
lS3. remams to deal wIth the parties' appeal and cross-appeal on costs. I have set out
It
material above (at paras 51/54).
84. Mr Cunningham accepts that the Secretary of State, although acting in the public
interest, has no specially favourable costs regime to rely on: see In re Southbourne
Sheet Metal Co Ltd (1993) I WLR 244 (CA). He therefore faces the ordinary rules to
be found now in CPR 44.3. Moreover, where a petition is properly brought, but
ultimately fails because of a change in circumstances, the making of a split order on
costs is supported by the decision of Harman J in Re Xyllyx pic (No 2) (1992) BCLC
378. There, the company was ordered to pay the Secretary of State's costs up to the
date when he ought to have reacted to the change, and the Secretary of State was
ordered to pay the company's costs after that date.
85. Nevertheless, Mr Cunningham appeals on the ground that the Secretary of State
should have all his costs. He submits that otherwise the clear warning and salutary
lesson of the properly founded petition is diluted. He relies again on his submission
that the petition would not have been dismissed but for the undertakings, and points
out that those undertakings were only offered in Mr Chivers' final speech; and that the
judge required the giving of an additional undertaking.
86. However, in my judgment, these submissions cannot survive the failure of the
Secretary of State's appeal on the merits. The undertakings were not crucial to the
dismissal of the petition; and in any event they were in principle available from 1 May
2007. The judge was entitled to think that a split order for costs was appropriate here.
The only question is where the should occur. .
87. The judge said that the relevant day was 20 November 2007, within one week of trial,
on the basis that that was not long after the completion of service of the company's
evidence and was the date of Mr Steadman's second affidavit on behalf of the
Court of Appealllnapprovcd .Judgment: BERR v AM WAY (UK) LTD
Secretary Df State. Mr Chivers submits that the date should be put back to 3 October,
a week after the letter and meeting which presented the company's new business
model to the Department.
88. In my judgment, that date is too early. The Secretary of State was entitled to await the
formulation of the company's evidence. There is something to be said for 29 October
2007, a month after the presentation of the new business model (and still a month
before trial), by which time the Treasury Solicitor had formulated the Secretary of
State's response in the e-mail of that date. In essence it would seem from that
response that the die was cast, and the Secretary of State was resolved to take his
stand on the inadequacy of the new business model. Moreover most of the company's
eyig~l1Gew(lsdat~din.th~ . ten. days .le3dingup to . lg.0ctcb~r2 097'~"':N c'vcrthclcs;:r;i.hac
was not the focus of Mr Chivers' submissions. Moreover, on balance, I am, and would
in principle be, reluctant to depart from the exercise of the judge's discretion as to the
precise timing of the split. I see no sufficient reason for departing from the judge's
ruling.
89. I would therefore dismiss both appeal and cross-appeal on the question of costs.
Conclusion
90. I would dismiss the Secretary of State's appeal on the merits and both parties' appeals
on costs. The judge's order will therefore stand.
Lord Justice Toulson:
91. I agree. I would only add on the issue of costs, referred to by Rix LJ in para 83, that
Mr Cunningham QC on instructions expressly disavowed any reliance on the line of
authorities such as Garlow v Institute of Chartered Accountants [2001] EWHC 220
(Admin), Bradford MDC v Booth (2001) 3 LGLR 8 and Baxendale-Walker v The Law
Society [2007] EWCA Civ 233, which are cited in an editorial note in the 2008 White
Book, Vol I, para 44.3.8. I. in support of the following proposition:
"A regulator brings proceedings in the public interest in the

exercise of a public function which it is required to perform. In
those circumstances the principles applicable to an award of
..J; .£'J:::,.., .,..,.' ,~",<, ..\,',", .,' .~ "....::':. ",,' ,," . , ,7, :.:' :,''-:'.:. ',' '. '.....'" ...'·. i· :.:'.i-. ',~: ,:,.""'.-,'...;..::... ,....'.,.. '.... ;..".',..':, ·'..;·... i:.'.' ..':·. ",' ....,\.." .. '.. ·"1·':' '··.. " ':. ',/".",'. ,.".".:': ",
'':'·'-'':::~':::·'~n.:.;;;:.'u'v;:;;;r'd::i.v''fi::till ieidl1uH tV !-'IIVtlllj CIVI
.... ,." .... f.....
uuganon."
/\bsontdishoncstYOI d,'laek't)f glJodfaith'a"cOsfs'order'should
not be made against such a regulator unless there is good
reason to do so. The reason must be more than that the other
party has succeeded."
92. That is a markedly different approach from the decision In re Southborne Sheet Metal
Co Ltd [1993] I WLR 244. In case it should be argued on a future occasion that there
is no good reason to distinguish between the Secretary of State petitioning for the
winding up of a company in the public interest and any other regulatory body taking
steps in what it believes in good faith to be the public interest, and that the practice
under In re Southborne Sheet Metal Co Ltd should be reconsidered in the light of
more recent authorities, it should be noted that this case proceeded on a concession
and that we have heard no argument on the point.
Lord Justice Rimer:
93. I also agree with Rix LJ's judgment.

Amway UK Appeals Opinion

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Amway UK Appeals Opinion

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Amway UK Appeals Opinion

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Neutral Citation Number: [2009] EWCA Civ 32

Case No: A212008/1525

LORD JUSTICE RIX

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR BUSINESS, Appellant 1

Mr Mark Cunningham QC and Mr Andrew Westwood (instructed by Treasury Solicitors)

Judgment Approved by the court

If this Judgment has been emailed to you it is to be treated as 'read-only'.

Lord Justice Rix :

sugg~:.:sti8n·that\vas,' c:ls!cr· to·· pr0sp~r as-un,IRQ, ·than·,l,va.s-in fact the,·easei> Some

ill Illy l'i6w ·Ulil6gsltk S6cret:i[y6ISiaie .iScol1tcl1t· that tl1cpCiifiol1 is

eV iu~rlct::, BDT' aftdI(T A "houldbc.GornpulsoriIy ~NGund· up andvvh)·( they sho uJd

lbe judge also referred to a passage in Re Senator Hanseatische

Draft 28 January 2009 13:21 7

Thejudge's appreciation a/the law

"The Secretary of State is not a licensor of approved business models or a

substantiate financial benefits was removed: Parliament considered that sufficient

The facts found relating to the old business model

16. Thejudge began by d~scribingthec~l11pany'so~n'.\'ebsite,by which it sought to

43. The picture can be presented in a variety of ways: but it is consistent.

He continued (at para 48):

He explained (at para 53):

The new business model and the company's undertakings

"II. In my judgment the Department's officials exhibited an appropriate degree

27. The judge commented as follows as to this new business model:

"In my judgment I must reach a decision on the totality of the evidence as

and retailers of its products by misstatements requires that the serious

"LAmway wi]] maintain the. present pmhibition. on. theproQ\lction,sale . or

4. Subject to paragraph 3 above,Amway will operate and maintain an orientation

1.':) Uctober :wu? the treasury :;olicltor replied bye-mail as tallows:

following points to your attention as warranting the Secretary of State proceeding

We will expand further on the continuing public interest in the winding up of

rely, as he did particularly in this appeal, on an approach in principle that said:

Mr Cunningham: I shall move on."

The costs judgment and the judge's permission to appeal

H!sdeci1=6on oncosts (see h~sj !uigment 9nd·.. order givenon'9June2008)'Nasto,?uake

have been and was considered on behalf of the Secretary of State by 20

"Although in the course of my judgment I endeavoured to make clear that on the

58. In advancing this appeal, however, Mr Cunningham understandably felt himself

62. Mr Cunningham's excellent advocacy, albeit matched by Mr Chivers, did not

63. There is no disagreement as to the law to be applied, only as to its application. Mr

abandon the exercise of discretion as to what is just and equitable in favour of a

(,7 find l1othino,

"I think it would be unjust because it would be a grossly disproportionate

company's current business practice the balance is tipped in favour of liquidation

investigation and the fact that no reliance can be placed on Mr Ghassemian to

September 2000 which used cold-calling telephone techniques to sell advertising

"[66] I am unable to accept either those submissions or the undertakings. The

Lord Justice Toulson:

"A regulator brings proceedings in the public interest in the

Lord Justice Rimer:

93. I also agree with Rix LJ's judgment.

You might also like