For an order to be made under the section, and a contribution to the shortfall on insolvency made, it was necessary to show that the person against whom the order was sought had in some way participated in the fraudulent activity. It was not necessary to show that there had been any direct involvement in the management or carrying on of the business.
Times 26-Oct-2000, Gazette 02-Nov-2000
England and Wales
See Also – Morris v Banque Arab et Internationale d’Investissement ChD 2000
The parties had exchanged lists of documents but one side objected to inspection of a number of them on the ground that it would put them in breach of French law.
Held: There was discretion to be exercised. Neuberger J ordered inspection . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.83853