Montgold Capital LLP v Ilska & Ors

Montgold Capital LLP v Ilska & Ors

Permission to continue the derivative claim is granted because the claim is realistic, carries conviction, is worth pursuing commercially, and the claimant is acting in good faith. Relief sought is not a sufficient reason for refusal, even though it may be available in other proceedings. The mandatory refusal threshold is not met.

Parties
Claimant: Montgold Capital LLP; First Defendant: Agnieszka Ilska; Second Defendant: Jad Youssef; Third Defendant: Philip Poyner; Fourth Defendant: Ascent FD Philip Poyner Limited; Fifth Defendant: Jonathan Sinclair; Sixth Defendant: Comptoir Group PLC; Seventh Defendant: Chaker Hanna; Eighth Defendant: Asher Miller; Ninth Defendant: Henry Lan
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Derivative Claim / Application for Permission to Continue Derivative Claim Under Section 261 Companies Act 2006
Outcome
Permission granted to continue derivative claim against first to ninth defendants.
Legal Topics
Derivative Claims, Unlawful Means Conspiracy, Administration, Directors' Duties, Unfair Prejudice, Security for Costs
Company Law Insolvency Law Derivative Claims Unlawful Means Conspiracy Administration Directors' Duties Unfair Prejudice Security for Costs

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 6 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Montgold Capital LLP

Claimant

Agnieszka Ilska

First Defendant

Jad Youssef

Second Defendant

Philip Poyner

Third Defendant

Ascent FD Philip Poyner Limited

Fourth Defendant

Jonathan Sinclair

Fifth Defendant

Comptoir Group PLC

Sixth Defendant

Chaker Hanna

Seventh Defendant

Asher Miller

Eighth Defendant

Henry Lan

Ninth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Derivative Claim / Application for Permission to Continue Derivative Claim Under Section 261 Companies Act 2006

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission should be granted to continue a derivative claim under section 261 Companies Act 2006
  2. 2 Whether the claim is worth pursuing commercially
  3. 3 Whether the claimant is acting in good faith

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to continue the derivative claim is granted because the claim is realistic, carries conviction, is worth pursuing commercially, and the claimant is acting in good faith. Relief sought is not a sufficient reason for refusal, even though it may be available in other proceedings. The mandatory refusal threshold is not met.

Court Disposition

Permission granted to continue derivative claim against first to ninth defendants.

Orders

  • Claimant given permission to continue derivative claim against first to ninth defendants on behalf of itself and other members of Agushia Limited.
  • Order to preserve Agushia's cash assets (£190,000 and any further cash) pending outcome of litigation.