Smithton ltd (formerly Hobart) brought an action for a loss suffered when both Insureprofit ltd and Mariona ltd failed to meet their obligations to pay margin calls under the contract with the applicant. The claim was made against Mr Naggar, who was a majority shareholder in Hobart and who owned and controlled, with his family, the two companies which had become insolvent. Hobart alleged that Mr Nagger was either a de facto director or a shadow director and had breached his duties to the company. The judge in this case recognized that there is a distinction in testing between shadow directors and de facto directors, as described by David. Richards J in the McKillen judgment, however, the parties decided not to distinguish between the concepts contained in the evidence presented. Therefore, the judge decided to take the same approach, which may have skewed the decision and interpretation in favor of the de facto director and the shadow director. It is important to establish the "identification of the hat" with which Mr. Naggar held and for the company to thus establish whether he was de facto or a ghost director. According to Ultraframe (UK) Ltd V Fielding, where the so-called shadow director is also a creditor of the company, he is entitled to protect his own interests as a creditor without becoming a shadow director. A position of strong influence is therefore not necessarily a fiduciary position. Mr Nagger himself was Hobart's largest shareholder and had strong influence over the company, but that does not mean he was a shadow director. de facto director because he viewed the issue as one of fact and degree. HMRC v Holland Lord Hope alleged that......in the middle of the document......regarding the principles set out by this case, Mr Keane referred to Mr Nagger and Mr Townsley as the "forces driving forces behind the company', but there was no indication that either of them ran the Hobart business and that Mr Nagger was part of the company's management. Additionally, some of Hobart's allegations referred to events that occurred in 2006 before Hobart spun off as a separate company from DDI. This refers to Mr Keane's allegation that he sought Mr Naggar's consent to make decisions. Furthermore, other decisions made by Mr. Naggar were entirely explainable because they were entirely consistent with his role as Chairman of DDI. Further evidence was provided which would imply that Mr Nagger may have been a shadow director. An example is the question of whether to change the name of Dawnay Day Capital Markets Ltd. However, there was no evidence that Mr Naggar's consent was necessary.