In a recent decision, the High Court refused to grant the Financial Times access to the whole of the Secretary of State's affirmation in support of directors' disqualification proceedings against Alexander Greensill, pursuant to either CPR 5.4C or the court's inherent jurisdiction.

Nilsson & Anor v Iqbal & Anor [2024] EWHC 49 (Ch) was an application by the joint trustees in bankruptcy of Mohammed Babar Iqbal for a declaration as to the beneficial ownership and an order for possession and sale of his former matrimonial home, Southview, Pollards Hill East in London. Mr Iqbal, the first respondent, did not appear to resist the trustees’ claim. The second respondent, Mrs Iqbal, did. She was his former wife under Islamic law.

Summary

In this High Court case ICC Judge Barber ordered a disqualified director to compensate creditors for losses under s15A of the Company Directors' Disqualification Act 1986 (CDDA) as a result of negligent conduct in trading a company illegally.

Facts

Phoenix Tech Ltd had carried on business to defraud HMRC by participating in a kind of VAT fraud sometimes called “missing trader intra-community” fraud or “carousel” fraud. It had submitted a VAT return claiming the right to deduct VAT and a repayment in respect of various transactions in the sum of £4.5 million. HMRC denied the input tax claim in relation to the transactions and issued a misdeclaration penalty for £607,387. The company appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber).

In Secretary of State for Business, Energy And Industrial Strategy v Barnsby [2022] EWHC 971 (Ch) ICC Judge Barber imposed a seven year disqualification period on the defendant arising out of his conduct as a director of Pure Zanzibar Ltd. Her latest judgment in the same case ([2023] EWHC 2284 (Ch)) deals with the Secretary of State’s claim for a compensation order under section 15A Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986.

In a recent case, the High Court has had one of its first opportunities to consider BTI v Sequana [2022] UKSC 25 (see our previous update here), in which the Supreme Court gave important guidance on the existence and scope of the duty of company directors to have regard to the interests of creditors (the so-called “creditor duty”, which arises in an insolvency scenario).

The question for the court in Durkan & Anor v Jones (Re Nicholas Mark Jones) [2023] EWHC 1359 (Ch) was whether it had jurisdiction to make a bankruptcy order.

In a recent decision in the high value bankruptcy of Pramod Mittal (Mr Mittal), the Chancery division considered the rules on service of insolvency applications. The decision underlines the importance of adhering to service rules and giving as much notice as possible of insolvency applications.

The recent case of Dolfin Asset Services Ltd v Stephens & Anor (Re Dolfin Financal (UK) Ltd) [2023] EWHC 123 (Ch) (“Dolfin“) concerned a special administration, but it has relevance to administrators more generally. In particular, when it comes to the judge’s view of what is meant by the word “consider” – which is phrase used in the insolvency legislation when it comes to making decisions.

Can a liquidator run an unjust enrichment claim to seek to recover PAYE and NIC liabilities from a company’s directors arising from the company’s use of a “disguised remuneration” employee benefit trust (“EBT”) scheme? Based on the findings of ICC Judge Barber in the case of Re Ethos Solutions Ltd, the answer is “no”.

EBTs: Background