. . . In such circumstances, sealing the indictment “would undermine the purpose of having a statute of limitations at all.”

Introduction

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).

A recently published case has shone a new light on the well-known fact of English company law – that a company has its own legal personality and is therefore separate and distinct from its members and directors.

Thus, a company shields its members and directors from most liabilities. For directors, this protective veil is pierced in certain limited circumstances such as those set out below.

Months of anticipation culminated in a successful result for the Liquidators of Bilta (UK) Limited (in liquidation) on 22 April 2015 in a pivotal fraud case, whereby the Supreme Court unanimously dismissed an appeal involving the ‘illegality defence’, in the case of Jetivia SA and another v Bilta (UK) Ltd (in liquidation) and others [2015] UKSC 23.

Months of anticipation culminated in a successful result for the Liquidators of Bilta (UK) Limited (in liquidation) on 22 April 2015 in a pivotal fraud case, whereby the Supreme Court unanimously dismissed an appeal involving the ‘illegality defence’, in the case of Jetivia SA and another v Bilta (UK) Ltd (in liquidation) and others [2015] UKSC 23.