The jurisdiction to grant an anti-suit injunction (ASI) arises in two broad categories of case:
- Where a claimant can invoke a contractual provision conferring on him the right to be sued in a particular forum;
- Where the claimant can point to clearly unconscionable conduct or threat of unconscionable conduct on the part of the party sought to be restrained.
(see Seismic Shipping Inc & Anor v Total E & P UK plc (The Western Regent) 2005 EWCA Civ 985)
Nicola Sharp of Rahman Ravelli outlines a case where an individual’s knowledge of a tax evasion scheme was key
A cellphone company director lost his bid to challenge a £1.7 million-plus award against him for VAT fraud when the High Court said he had actual knowledge of his firm's tax evasion scheme.
In Bhatia v Purkiss [2023] EWHC 775, the High Court rejected an appeal from Deepak Bhatia, the company director of the now-defunct phone company JD Group Ltd, against a ruling from the Insolvency and Companies Court (ICC).
Nicola Sharp considers the recent appeal decision in Tradition Financial Services Ltd vBilta (UK) Ltd [2023] EWCA Civ, and the ways in which it affects the definition of fraudulent trading.
Nicola Sharp of Rahman Ravelli considers a case that shows the courts’ reluctance to expand the jurisdiction of equity to award compound interest in common law claims.
How is the function of a company’s separate personality altered by insolvency? And to what extent may that give rise to an action in civil fraud? Nicola Sharp of Rahman Ravelli outlines the situation.
Since the end of the 19th century and the decision in Salomon v A Salomon and Co Ltd [1897] AC 22, it has been settled law that a company has its own separate personality. But as company law and insolvency law have evolved, the function of the company’s separate legal personality has developed.
Niall Hearty of Rahman Ravelli details a case where the court considered the issue of protecting assets that are subject to a proprietary claim.
A High Court ruling regarding frozen assets can be seen as a positive outcome for both the claimant and potential claimants in future such cases.
The ruling has shown that the courts will be robust when it comes to protecting assets over which a proprietary claim is being made.
Case Background
The Insolvency Service now has extended powers when it comes to directors dissolving companies to avoid paying their liabilities.
These powers have been granted under the Rating (Coronavirus) and Directors Disqualification (Dissolved Companies) Act, which was given royal assent on 15 December 2021.
Nicola Sharp of business crime solicitors Rahman Ravelli explains wrongful trading and the responsibilities placed on directors.
In response to the crisis caused by Covid-19, Business Secretary Alok Sharma announced in March a relaxation of the UK’s insolvency framework. Included in this – along with key payment safeguards for creditors and suppliers - was a temporary suspension of wrongful trading provisions with retrospective effect from 1 March, for an initial period of three months.
Syedur Rahman considers the significance of the April 2020 judgment in Byers & Ors V Samba
The latest hearing in the case of the US $300million claim of Byers & Ors v Samba Financial Bank took place over three days at the end of February 2020. The Court handed down its judgment on 8th April 2020.
This judgment is a significant one on several points:
Syedur Rahman of Rahman Ravelli examines a case that ruled on whether a Warning Notice can be issued while there is a liquidation stay on action and proceedings.
As the saga continues following the collapse of the facilities management and construction services group Carillion, so does the legal fall-out regarding the company and its regulation by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA).