Asertis Ltd v Heathcote & Anor [2022] EWHC 2498 (Ch) (10 October 2022)

Asertis Ltd v Heathcote & Anor [2022] EWHC 2498 (Ch) (10 October 2022)

The rewards claims fail because the payments to Mr Heathcote were properly authorised as remuneration for his services, not disguised gifts or unlawful transactions at undervalue, and there was no breach of directors' duties or fraud on creditors. The payment claim succeeds because the £65,000 payment to Servico Contract Upholstery Limited was a preference under s.239 Insolvency Act 1986, made to a connected party within two years of liquidation, and the presumption of desire to prefer was not rebutted.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 2498 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Asertis Limited; First Defendant: Mr Dale Heathcote; Second Defendant: Servico Contract Upholstery Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 October 2022
Procedural Posture
Insolvency Claim (companies Act 1986) / High Court Trial Judgment
Outcome
Rewards claims dismissed; payment claim allowed.
Legal Topics
Directors' Duties, Transactions at Undervalue, Preferences, Tax Avoidance Schemes, Employee Benefit Trusts
Company Law Insolvency Law Directors' Duties Transactions at Undervalue Preferences Tax Avoidance Schemes Employee Benefit Trusts

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 7 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Asertis Limited

Claimant

Mr Dale Heathcote

First Defendant

Servico Contract Upholstery Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Insolvency Claim (companies Act 1986) / High Court Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether rewards paid to Mr Heathcote were authorised remuneration or unlawful transactions at undervalue breaching directors' duties and defrauding creditors under s.423 Insolvency Act 1986
  2. 2 Whether the £65,000 payment to Servico Contract Upholstery Limited was an unlawful preference under s.239 Insolvency Act 1986

Ratio Decidendi

The rewards claims fail because the payments to Mr Heathcote were properly authorised as remuneration for his services, not disguised gifts or unlawful transactions at undervalue, and there was no breach of directors' duties or fraud on creditors. The payment claim succeeds because the £65,000 payment to Servico Contract Upholstery Limited was a preference under s.239 Insolvency Act 1986, made to a connected party within two years of liquidation, and the presumption of desire to prefer was not rebutted.

Court Disposition

Rewards claims dismissed; payment claim allowed.

Orders

  • Mr Heathcote and Servico Contract Upholstery Limited are ordered to restore the £65,000 payment to the claimant as assignee of the Company.