Smithton ltd (formerly Hobart) filed a claim for a loss suffered when the two companies Insureprofit ltd and Mariona ltd failed to meet their obligations to pay margin calls under the contract with the appellant. The case was brought against Mr Naggar who was a majority shareholder in Hobart and himself and his family owned and controlled the two companies which had failed. Hobart said Mr Nagger was a de facto or shadow director and had breached the duties he owed to the company. The judge in this case recognized that there is a distinction in the tests between shadow directors and de facto directors, as described by David Richards J in McKillen, however the parties decided not to make any distinction between the concepts contained in the evidence given. Therefore the judge decided to take the same approach, which may have compromised the de facto and shadow director's decision and interpretation. It is important to establish the "hat identification" that Mr Naggar held with and for the company in order to establish whether he was a de facto or shadow director. According to Ultraframe (UK) Ltd V Fielding, where the alleged shadow director is also a creditor of the company, he is entitled to protect his interest as a creditor without becoming a shadow director. Therefore a position of strong influence is not necessarily a position of trust. Nagger himself was Hobart's largest shareholder and had a strong influence on the company, but that does not mean he was a shadow director. de facto director as he saw the matter as one of fact and degree. HMRC v Netherlands Lord Hope said that... halfway through the document... of the principles established by this case, Mr Keane referred to Mr Nagger and Mr Townsley as the "driving forces behind the company", but there was no indication that either ran the Hobart business and that Mr Nagger was part of the company's management. Additionally, some of Hobart's allegations related to events that occurred in 2006 before Hobart split off to become a separate company from DDI. This relates to Mr Keane's allegations that he sought Mr Naggar's consent for decisions. Furthermore, other decisions taken by Mr Naggar were entirely explicable as they were entirely consistent with his role as president of DDI. Further evidence was provided which would imply that Mr Nagger could 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