The Commissioners for HMRC v Parul Keshavlal Malde

The Commissioners for HMRC v Parul Keshavlal Malde

The freezing injunction should not be discharged at this stage because HMRC's grounds of appeal have a real prospect of success on several points, there remains a real risk of dissipation of assets, and the balance of hardship does not justify discharge. However, due to the exceptional length of the injunction and criticisms of HMRC's conduct, the terms of the injunction should be varied to require a forward-looking cross-undertaking in damages from HMRC, increased allowances for Mr Malde, and a mechanism for automatic cessation after the Upper Tribunal decision unless renewed.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: The Commissioners for His Majesty's Revenue and Customs; Defendant/applicant: Parul Keshavlal Malde
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil (freezing Injunction, Tax Penalties, Director's Liability) / Post Trial Application to Discharge or Vary Freezing Injunction Pending Appeal
Outcome
Application to discharge freezing injunction refused; terms of injunction to be varied
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Personal Liability for Tax Penalties, Director's Liability, Article 6 ECHR (reasonable Time), Burden of Proof in Tax Appeals, Cross Undertaking in Damages, Balance of Hardship
Civil Procedure Tax Law Human Rights Freezing Injunctions Personal Liability for Tax Penalties Director's Liability Article 6 ECHR (reasonable Time) Burden of Proof in Tax Appeals +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 7 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

Civil (freezing Injunction, Tax Penalties, Director's Liability) / Post Trial Application to Discharge or Vary Freezing Injunction Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the freezing injunction against Mr Malde should be discharged or varied pending HMRC's appeal
  2. 2 Whether the continuation of the freezing injunction breaches Article 6 ECHR (reasonable time)
  3. 3 Whether HMRC's grounds of appeal have a real prospect of success

Ratio Decidendi

The freezing injunction should not be discharged at this stage because HMRC's grounds of appeal have a real prospect of success on several points, there remains a real risk of dissipation of assets, and the balance of hardship does not justify discharge. However, due to the exceptional length of the injunction and criticisms of HMRC's conduct, the terms of the injunction should be varied to require a forward-looking cross-undertaking in damages from HMRC, increased allowances for Mr Malde, and a mechanism for automatic cessation after the Upper Tribunal decision unless renewed.

Court Disposition

Application to discharge freezing injunction refused; terms of injunction to be varied

Orders

  • Freezing injunction to continue pending Upper Tribunal appeal, subject to variation of terms
  • HMRC to provide a forward-looking cross-undertaking in damages (cap to be determined)