This websites use cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. For more details about cookies and how to manage them, see our cookie policy.

Cases Andrew Westwood

Keeping Kids Company

Judgment Date: 12 Feb 2021

In a judgment handed down today following a 10 week trial, Falk J dismissed the Official Receiver’s claim for the disqualification of the former directors (“the Trustees”) of the well-known charity Kids Company, which went into liquidation in 2015.

View case

Maria Puzitskaya & Ors v St Paul's Mews (2017)

Judgment Date: 26 Apr 2017

Where a company's articles of association provided for members to have particular voting rights in general meetings, and the articles had been drafted before the Companies Act 2006 allowed for majority voting on written resolutions, the articles could not be construed so as to apply the particular voting rights to the written resolution procedure.

View case

Bilta (UK) Ltd (In Liquidation) v SVS Securities Plc & Ors (2017)

Judgment Date: 31 Jan 2017

Certain amendments to particulars of claim were allowed where they did not distort and extend the trial. The amendments related to evidence that had arisen from German trades that were part of alleged VAT fraud involving the sale and purchase of European Union allowances under the European Emission Trading Scheme.

View case

Fairfield Sentry Ltd v Migani & Ors (2014)

Judgment Date: 16 Apr 2014

Certain documents sent by the administrator of a mutual fund to members, including contract notes recording any redemption of shares made, constituted "certificates" which were binding on the fund under its articles of association.

View case

Caldero Trading Ltd v Beppler & Jacobson Ltd & Ors (2012)

Judgment Date: 14 Jun 2012

Showing or supplying the witness statements and attached documents to a third party funder so that the funder could determine whether to continue to fund the proceedings and whether to give and whether to continue to give the cross-undertaking in damages was use "for the purpose of the proceedings" within CPR r.31.22.

View case

Nigel Grogan v Revenue & Customs Commissioners (2010)

Judgment Date: 21 Oct 2010

The tax avoidance provisions contained in the Income Tax Act 2007 s.682 to s.713 relating to a tax advantage obtained through a transaction in securities could apply where an express statutory scheme such as a qualifying employee share ownership trust had been utilised.

View case

In The Matter Of Metrocab & In The Matter Of Frazer Nash Technology v Revenue & Customs (2010)

Judgment Date: 11 Jun 2010

The court refused to exercise its discretion to rescind winding-up orders made against two companies where the circumstances were not significantly different from those at the time the orders were made, and the court was not satisfied that it had been provided with all the material facts.

View case

Life Enterprises LTD v Revenue & Customs Commissioners (TC00281) (2009)

Judgment Date: 02 Dec 2009

ms had shown, on the balance of probabilities, that a company involved in the supply and export of mobile telephones knew, or ought to have known, that it was participating in transactions connected with the fraudulent evasion of VAT. On that basis it was entitled to refuse to refund input tax claimed in respect of the transactions.

View case

Gel P Grogan v Revenue & Customs Commissioners (TC00187) (2009)

Judgment Date: 14 Sep 2009

An appeal against a notice to counteract a tax advantage obtained on the sale of shares to a qualifying employee share ownership trust was dismissed because the appellant failed to show that tax saving was not the main object of that sale.

View case

Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform v Charter Financial Solutions Ltd

Judgment Date: 22 May 2009

It was in the public interest to make orders winding up companies where the business affairs of the companies had been conducted with a lack of commercial probity.

View case

Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform v Amway (UK) Ltd (2009)

Judgment Date: 29 Jan 2009

The judge had carried out the necessary balancing exercise when refusing a petition under the Insolvency Act 1986 s.124A to wind up a company on public interest grounds. Having regard to a new business model formulated by the company and undertakings offered as to its conduct, the judge's decision had been justified.

View case

Secretary of State for Business Enterprise & Regulatory Reform v Aaron (2008)

Judgment Date: 16 Oct 2008

In director disqualification proceedings, whether brought under s.8 or under s.7 for an order under s.6 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986, there was an implied exception to the strict rules of evidence on hearsay evidence, opinion evidence and the rule in Hollington v Hewthorn.

View case

Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform v Amway (UK) Ltd (2008)

Judgment Date: 14 May 2008

Where a company which the secretary of state sought to wind up in the public interest had revised its business model and gave undertakings as to its future conduct a winding-up order was disproportionate.

View case

Secretary of State for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform v Aaron (2008)

Judgment Date: 22 Apr 2008

The defendants were all directors of a company which operated as an independent financial adviser. The company was regulated by the Personal Investment Authority until the end of November 2001 and thereafter by the Financial Services Authority (FSA). In June 2003, the FSA commenced an investigation into the activities of the company. Five complaints were upheld, and the company later went into creditors' voluntary liquidation, with an estimated deficiency of some £13m.

View case

Re Vintage Hallmark PLC; Secretary of State for Trade & Industry v Grove

Judgment Date: 15 Nov 2006

Two directors of a company were disqualified for the maximum period of 15 years where they had procured that company to purchase assets and liabilities of a partnership knowing, or being recklessly indifferent or grossly negligent to the fact, that it was effectively worthless.

View case

Re Mea Corporation Ltd; Secretary of State for Trade & Industry v Aviss

Judgment Date: 20 Jul 2006

Where the defendants had exercised control over three companies in an area of corporate affairs as critical as the application of trading income and the payment of trade creditors, they had been directors or shadow directors, and their conduct in trading to the detriment of creditors and failing to respect the fundamental principle that each company had a separate legal personality made them unfit to be concerned in the management of a company.

View case

H M Revenue and Customs v Hyde Industrial Holdings Ltd (2006)

Judgment Date: 28 Apr 2006

The Social Security Administration Act 1992 s.117A did not deprive the court of jurisdiction to strike out a claim to recover national insurance contributions. An order striking out such proceedings had been properly made but in the circumstances the court had erred in refusing to reinstate the claim on the Revenue's application.

View case

Barca v Mears (2004)

Judgment Date: 24 Sep 2004

A shift in emphasis in the interpretation of the Insolvency Act 1986 s.335A, s.336 and s.337 might be necessary to achieve compatibility with a bankrupt's rights under the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 in that those sections ought to be regarded as recognising that, in the general run of cases, the creditors' interests would outweigh all other interests, but leaving it open to a court to find that, on a proper consideration of the facts of a particular case, it was one of the exceptional cases in which that proposition was not true.

View case

Official Receiver v Ohayon

Judgment Date: 25 Aug 2004

View case

1 2

Results 1 - 20 of 30