The petitioners brought an action under s459 and obtained freezing orders both in relation to the property of the subject company and in relation to the assets of its two executive directors up to the value of pounds 500,000 each. On the adjourned return day Pumfrey J discharged the orders in relation to the executive directors on the grounds that the petition disclosed no cause of action against them sufficient to confer jurisdiction to grant or continue such orders. By the adjourned return date sufficient protection against the dissipation of the company’s assets was in place to make the continuation of a freezing order in relation to the company’s assets unnecessary. In proceedings alleging unfair prejudice to minority shareholders, but where there was no allegation in the proceedings which might lead to personal liability on a company’s directors, and notwithstanding any balance of convenience, it was wrong to order the freezing of the directors assets.
Pumfrey J said: ‘In the context of a s459 petition I can well understand that it may be appropriate to grant Mareva relief against the company itself, in order to preserve the value of the interests of the members of the company. The petition, if it has a respondent, is primarily the company itself.’
Judges:
Pumfrey J
Citations:
Times 27-Feb-2001, [2002] 2 BCLC 634
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – HM Revenue and Customs v Egleton and others ChD 19-Sep-2006
The claimants had applied for the winding up of a company for very substantial sums of VAT due to it. Anticipating that hearing, it now sought restraining orders against the director defendants, alleging that there had been a carousel or missing . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Company
Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.82128
