Jackson & Ors v Thakrar & Ors [2007] EWHC 2173 (TCC) (10 October 2007)
Ramila and Vijaya were never intended to acquire beneficial ownership of properties or shares registered in their names; they provided no consideration and were unaware of the transactions. Glen and Teso were formed and controlled by Subhash to conceal assets. Mr Harjivan never acquired beneficial ownership of Glen or Teso. The administration of Glen was invalid as it was engineered for improper purposes and failed to comply with statutory requirements. The Thakrar family actions, save for Ramila and Vijaya, were an abuse of process. Default judgments against Ramila and Vijaya were irregular as they had no knowledge or involvement.
- Citation
- [2007] EWHC 2173 (TCC)
- Parties
- Claimant/applicant: Shirley Jackson (Trustee in Bankruptcy of Subhash Kanji Thakrar); Claimant/applicant: Suburban Property Company Limited, Kenneth Hughes-Narborough, Rosemary Campbell; Claimant/applicant: Kenneth Hughes-Narborough, Rosemary Campbell, Michael Hughes-Narborough (trustees of William Hughes-Narborough's will trusts and of his estate); Claimant/applicant: Barbara Harris (claiming personally and as sole surviving executrix of Neil Hughes-Narborough's will); Claimant/applicant: Ramila Suresh Bhojani; Claimant/applicant: Vijaya Radia; Defendant/respondent: Subhash Kanji Thakrar (a bankrupt); Defendant/respondent: Mukesh Kanji Thakrar; Defendant/respondent: Vijay Kanji Thakrar; Defendant/respondent: Kishan Kanji Thakrar; Defendant/respondent: Sheela Kanji Thakrar; Defendant/respondent: Naina Unalkat; Defendant/respondent: Shantaben Kanji Thakrar; Defendant/respondent: Glen International Limited; Defendant/respondent: Teso International Group Limited; Defendant/respondent: SK Thakrar and Co Limited; Defendant/respondent: Simply Lettings and Management Limited; Defendant/respondent: Mahindra Harjivan; Defendant/respondent: Selwyn Michael Langley, Justin Lee Bennett (Receivers appointed by Glen International Limited); Defendant/respondent: Barry Shelton, Mahindra Harjivan (in relation only to Party 1's and Party 4's applications under paragraph 81 of Schedule B1 of the Insolvency Act 1986), Avni Bhatt (Directors of Party 14)
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 10 October 2007
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Multi Party Property, Insolvency, and Trust Litigation / Fact Finding Trial (judgment No. 5) in Consolidated Proceedings
- Outcome
- Fact-finding judgment; declarations as to beneficial ownership and validity of transactions; directions for further trial on consequences.
- Legal Topics
- Beneficial Ownership, Fraudulent Conveyance, Abuse of Process, Administration of Companies, Tracing and Restitution, Bankruptcy, Default Judgments, Compromise Agreements
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Shirley Jackson (Trustee in Bankruptcy of Subhash Kanji Thakrar)
Claimant/applicant
Suburban Property Company Limited, Kenneth Hughes-Narborough, Rosemary Campbell
Claimant/applicant
Kenneth Hughes-Narborough, Rosemary Campbell, Michael Hughes-Narborough (trustees of William Hughes-Narborough's will trusts and of his estate)
Claimant/applicant
Barbara Harris (claiming personally and as sole surviving executrix of Neil Hughes-Narborough's will)
Claimant/applicant
Ramila Suresh Bhojani
Claimant/applicant
Vijaya Radia
Claimant/applicant
Subhash Kanji Thakrar (a bankrupt)
Defendant/respondent
Mukesh Kanji Thakrar
Defendant/respondent
Vijay Kanji Thakrar
Defendant/respondent
Kishan Kanji Thakrar
Defendant/respondent
Sheela Kanji Thakrar
Defendant/respondent
Naina Unalkat
Defendant/respondent
Shantaben Kanji Thakrar
Defendant/respondent
Glen International Limited
Defendant/respondent
Teso International Group Limited
Defendant/respondent
SK Thakrar and Co Limited
Defendant/respondent
Simply Lettings and Management Limited
Defendant/respondent
Mahindra Harjivan
Defendant/respondent
Selwyn Michael Langley, Justin Lee Bennett (Receivers appointed by Glen International Limited)
Defendant/respondent
Barry Shelton, Mahindra Harjivan (in relation only to Party 1's and Party 4's applications under paragraph 81 of Schedule B1 of the Insolvency Act 1986), Avni Bhatt (Directors of Party 14)
Defendant/respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Multi Party Property, Insolvency, and Trust Litigation / Fact Finding Trial (judgment No. 5) in Consolidated Proceedings
Legal Issues
- 1 Who beneficially owned properties and shares transferred into Ramila and Vijaya's names?
- 2 Was the formation and shareholding of Glen and Teso a sham?
- 3 Did Mr Harjivan acquire legal and beneficial ownership of Glen and Teso?
Ratio Decidendi
Ramila and Vijaya were never intended to acquire beneficial ownership of properties or shares registered in their names; they provided no consideration and were unaware of the transactions. Glen and Teso were formed and controlled by Subhash to conceal assets. Mr Harjivan never acquired beneficial ownership of Glen or Teso. The administration of Glen was invalid as it was engineered for improper purposes and failed to comply with statutory requirements. The Thakrar family actions, save for Ramila and Vijaya, were an abuse of process. Default judgments against Ramila and Vijaya were irregular as they had no knowledge or involvement.
Court Disposition
Fact-finding judgment; declarations as to beneficial ownership and validity of transactions; directions for further trial on consequences.
Orders
- Declaration that Ramila and Vijaya did not acquire beneficial ownership of properties or shares registered in their names.
- Declaration that Glen and Teso were beneficially owned and controlled by Subhash.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment