Commissioners for His Majesty's Revenue and Customs v Malde [2023] EWHC 1188 (Ch) (19 May 2023)

Commissioners for His Majesty's Revenue and Customs v Malde [2023] EWHC 1188 (Ch) (19 May 2023)

The freezing injunction should not be discharged at this stage because HMRC's appeal to the Upper Tribunal has a real prospect of success on several grounds, the balance of hardship does not decisively favour Mr Malde, and the length and conduct of proceedings to date do not breach Article 6(1) ECHR's reasonable time requirement. The risk of dissipation of assets remains real, and the purpose of the freezing injunction—to preserve the status quo pending final determination—continues to apply.

Citation
[2023] EWHC 1188 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: The Commissioners for His Majesty's Revenue and Customs; Defendant/applicant: Parul Keshavlal Malde
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 May 2023
Procedural Posture
Application to Discharge or Vary Freezing Injunction in Civil Penalty Proceedings / Post Judgment, Pending Appeal to Upper Tribunal
Outcome
Application to discharge freezing injunction refused; freezing injunction to continue, subject to possible variation of terms.
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Personal Liability Notices, Director's Liability Notice, VAT and Excise Duty Penalties, Article 6 ECHR (reasonable Time), Burden of Proof in Tax Penalty Appeals, Balance of Hardship, Interim Relief Pending Appeal
Civil Procedure Tax Law Human Rights Freezing Injunctions Personal Liability Notices Director's Liability Notice VAT and Excise Duty Penalties Article 6 ECHR (reasonable Time) +3 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 31 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Commissioners for His Majesty's Revenue and Customs

Claimant/respondent

Parul Keshavlal Malde

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Application to Discharge or Vary Freezing Injunction in Civil Penalty Proceedings / Post Judgment, Pending Appeal to Upper Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the freezing injunction against Mr Malde should be discharged or continued pending HMRC's appeal to the Upper Tribunal
  2. 2 Whether the continuation of the freezing injunction breaches Article 6(1) ECHR (reasonable time requirement)
  3. 3 Whether HMRC's appeal has a real prospect of success under the Novartis test

Ratio Decidendi

The freezing injunction should not be discharged at this stage because HMRC's appeal to the Upper Tribunal has a real prospect of success on several grounds, the balance of hardship does not decisively favour Mr Malde, and the length and conduct of proceedings to date do not breach Article 6(1) ECHR's reasonable time requirement. The risk of dissipation of assets remains real, and the purpose of the freezing injunction—to preserve the status quo pending final determination—continues to apply.

Court Disposition

Application to discharge freezing injunction refused; freezing injunction to continue, subject to possible variation of terms.

Orders

  • Freezing injunction against Mr Malde to continue pending outcome of HMRC's appeal to the Upper Tribunal.
  • Court to consider variation of the terms of the freezing order and Mr Malde's allowance in light of the length of the injunction and hardship caused.