The Official Receiver v Nduka Obaigbena

The Official Receiver v Nduka Obaigbena

Permission to appeal is granted on the ground that it is arguable the judge applied the wrong legal test and on the ground that the sentence may have been excessive, but refused on grounds relating to new evidence and the EPG asset as these were not raised at trial and would require further evidence.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: The Official Receiver; Defendant/appellant: Nduka Obaigbena
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 December 2021
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Permission to appeal granted in part, refused in part.
Legal Topics
Director Disqualification, Appeal Procedure, Evidentiary Issues
Insolvency Company Law Director Disqualification Appeal Procedure Evidentiary Issues

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Official Receiver

Claimant/respondent

Nduka Obaigbena

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge applied the correct legal test for director disqualification
  2. 2 Whether new evidence regarding creditor information and asset existence should be admitted on appeal
  3. 3 Whether the length of the disqualification period was appropriate

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to appeal is granted on the ground that it is arguable the judge applied the wrong legal test and on the ground that the sentence may have been excessive, but refused on grounds relating to new evidence and the EPG asset as these were not raised at trial and would require further evidence.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal granted in part, refused in part.

Orders

  • Permission to appeal granted on ground 1 (subject to redrafting) and ground 3.
  • Permission to appeal refused on grounds 2, 2A, and 4.