References in legislation to "officer or servant" always need some thought. As regards "servant", whereas nowadays we talk of "employer and employee" back in the 19th century the references seem to have been to "master and servant". In most cases, therefore, "servant" can be read as meaning employee. As regards "officer", even today a director of a company is an officer of the company in the sense that the individual concerned holds the office of director. Some directors also have service contracts so that they are both an officer and an employee, whilst other directors are officers but not also employees. And what is true of a director is also true of a company secretary. So it is nearly always the case that "officer or servant" can be read nowadays as "officer or employee". This is despite that fact that there is case law which, in something like a local authority context, seems to suggest that officer means senior employee and servant means junior employee. It is unlikely that the phrase catches a mere agent of the company. And there will be difficulties with individuals who have been seconded by their own employer to work for the company but without becoming an employee of the company: they are unlikely to be an employee/servant of the company and, unless they have been parachuted in to temporarily fill a particular pre-defined and continuing role, are unlikely to be an officer of the company. Some modern legislation refers to the staff of a body in order to catch people fulfilling the role of an employee without being an employee.