Wood & Anor v Baker & Ors [2015] EWHC 2536 (Ch) (31 July 2015)

Wood & Anor v Baker & Ors [2015] EWHC 2536 (Ch) (31 July 2015)

The trustees in bankruptcy demonstrated a good arguable case that the bankrupt controlled the corporate respondents and used them to conceal assets, which are after-acquired property subject to vesting in the trustees. There is a real risk of dissipation, justifying without notice interim freezing injunctions. The court accepted a limited cross-undertaking in damages, balancing fairness and the absence of respondent representation.

Citation
[2015] EWHC 2536 (Ch)
Parties
Applicant Trustee in Bankruptcy: Paul David Wood; Applicant Trustee in Bankruptcy: Andrew Stephen McGill; Respondent Bankrupt: Timothy Darren Baker; Respondent Individual: Andrew Farrar; Respondent Individual: Satnam Singh; Respondent Corporate Entity: Consult Business Services (UK) Ltd; Respondent Corporate Entity: Ashco (Birmingham) Ltd; Respondent Corporate Entity: Ample Investments Ltd; Respondent Corporate Entity: Fast Admin Services Ltd; Respondent Corporate Entity: Printfast Limited; Respondent Corporate Entity: Connect FI Ltd; Respondent Corporate Entity: H & E (Assets) Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy / Without Notice Interim Injunction Application
Outcome
Interim freezing injunctions granted without notice to respondents; limited cross-undertaking in damages accepted; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunction, After Acquired Property, Piercing Corporate Veil, Trusts, Agent Principal Relationship, Cross Undertaking in Damages
Insolvency Bankruptcy Equity Company Law Freezing Injunction After Acquired Property Piercing Corporate Veil Trusts +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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul David Wood

Applicant Trustee in Bankruptcy

Andrew Stephen McGill

Applicant Trustee in Bankruptcy

Timothy Darren Baker

Respondent Bankrupt

Andrew Farrar

Respondent Individual

Satnam Singh

Respondent Individual

Consult Business Services (UK) Ltd

Respondent Corporate Entity

Ashco (Birmingham) Ltd

Respondent Corporate Entity

Ample Investments Ltd

Respondent Corporate Entity

Fast Admin Services Ltd

Respondent Corporate Entity

Printfast Limited

Respondent Corporate Entity

Connect FI Ltd

Respondent Corporate Entity

H & E (Assets) Ltd

Respondent Corporate Entity

Procedural Posture

Bankruptcy / Without Notice Interim Injunction Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether trustees in bankruptcy are entitled to freezing injunctions over assets held by corporate respondents allegedly controlled by the bankrupt
  2. 2 Whether assets held by corporate respondents are after-acquired property subject to section 307 Insolvency Act 1986
  3. 3 Whether the corporate veil can be pierced to treat assets as beneficially owned by the bankrupt

Ratio Decidendi

The trustees in bankruptcy demonstrated a good arguable case that the bankrupt controlled the corporate respondents and used them to conceal assets, which are after-acquired property subject to vesting in the trustees. There is a real risk of dissipation, justifying without notice interim freezing injunctions. The court accepted a limited cross-undertaking in damages, balancing fairness and the absence of respondent representation.

Court Disposition

Interim freezing injunctions granted without notice to respondents; limited cross-undertaking in damages accepted; costs reserved.

Orders

  • Freezing injunctions over business and assets of corporate respondents, including bank accounts, generally, and up to £180,000 for H & E (Assets) Ltd.
  • Injunctions restraining individual respondents from dealing with or dissipating business and assets of corporate entities.