Hitesh Gandesha v Narendra Gandesha & Ors: Re Milestar Limited

Hitesh Gandesha v Narendra Gandesha & Ors: Re Milestar Limited

Permission to continue the derivative claims is granted as each claim is one that a director acting in accordance with s.172 would pursue, the claimant is acting in good faith, and the claims are valid and important to the company. A pre-emptive indemnity for costs is appropriate but limited to the period up to exchange of witness evidence, subject to review if circumstances change.

Parties
Claimant: Hitesh Gandesha; First Defendant: Narendra Gandesha; Second Defendant: Amit Gandesha and Vinesh Gandesha (as executors of Surendra Kumar Gandesha deceased); Third Defendant: Milestar Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Derivative Claim / Permission Application Under S.261 Companies Act 2006
Outcome
Permission granted to continue derivative claims; pre-emptive indemnity for costs granted up to exchange of witness evidence; application adjourned for further review.
Legal Topics
Derivative Claims, Directors' Duties, Costs Indemnity, Permission to Continue Claim, Trust Income, Directors' Loan Account, Bank Mandate, Accounting for Company Assets
Company Law Civil Procedure Derivative Claims Directors' Duties Costs Indemnity Permission to Continue Claim Trust Income Directors' Loan Account +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hitesh Gandesha

Claimant

Narendra Gandesha

First Defendant

Amit Gandesha and Vinesh Gandesha (as executors of Surendra Kumar Gandesha deceased)

Second Defendant

Milestar Limited

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Derivative Claim / Permission Application Under S.261 Companies Act 2006

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission should be granted to continue derivative claims under s.261 Companies Act 2006
  2. 2 Whether claimant is acting in good faith
  3. 3 Whether a director acting in accordance with s.172 would continue the claim

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to continue the derivative claims is granted as each claim is one that a director acting in accordance with s.172 would pursue, the claimant is acting in good faith, and the claims are valid and important to the company. A pre-emptive indemnity for costs is appropriate but limited to the period up to exchange of witness evidence, subject to review if circumstances change.

Court Disposition

Permission granted to continue derivative claims; pre-emptive indemnity for costs granted up to exchange of witness evidence; application adjourned for further review.

Orders

  • Claimant granted permission to continue derivative action under s.261(4)(a) Companies Act 2006
  • Company to indemnify Claimant for costs incurred to date and up to exchange of witness evidence