BMF Assets No. 1 Ltd & Ors v Sanne Group PLC & Ors (Rev1) [2021] EWHC 3306 (Ch) (19 November 2021)

BMF Assets No. 1 Ltd & Ors v Sanne Group PLC & Ors (Rev1) [2021] EWHC 3306 (Ch) (19 November 2021)

The application for an injunction was dismissed as totally without merit because there was no admissible evidence of a valid asset sale, no standing for the applicant, no serious issue to be tried, and the application was an abuse of process aimed at interfering with ongoing legitimate litigation. The applicant failed to demonstrate any legal or factual basis for the relief sought.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 3306 (Ch)
Parties
Applicant/claimant: BMF Assets No. 1 Limited; Applicant/claimant: BMF Holdings Limited; Applicant/claimant: Business Mortgage Finance 3 PLC; Applicant/claimant: Business Mortgage Finance 4 PLC; Applicant/claimant: Business Mortgage Finance 5 PLC; Applicant/claimant: Business Mortgage Finance 6 PLC; Applicant/claimant: Business Mortgage Finance 7 PLC; Applicant/claimant: Kipling Firs Limited; Applicant/claimant: Tilman Holdings Limited; Respondent/defendant: Sanne Group PLC; Respondent/defendant: Sanne Group (UK) Limited; Respondent/defendant: Sanne Group Secretaries (UK) Limited; Respondent/defendant: Sanne Trustee Company (UK) Limited; Respondent/defendant: Martin Charles Schnaier; Respondent/defendant: Jason Christopher Bingham; Respondent/defendant: Beejadhursingh Surnam; Respondent/defendant: Coral Suzanne Bidel; Respondent/defendant: Marc Speight; Respondent/defendant: Simmons & Simmons LLP; Respondent/defendant: Caroline Hunter-Yeats; Respondent/defendant: Alexander Paul Riddiford
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 November 2021
Procedural Posture
Injunction Application (interlocutory) / High Court (chancery Division) Judgment on Application
Outcome
Application dismissed as totally without merit; costs awarded on indemnity basis; further directions and restrictions ordered.
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunctions, Securitisation Structures, Company Directorship Disputes, Abuse of Process, Costs (indemnity Basis), Standing, Corporate Governance
Civil Procedure Company Law Financial Services Interlocutory Injunctions Securitisation Structures Company Directorship Disputes Abuse of Process Costs (indemnity Basis) +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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BMF Assets No. 1 Limited

Applicant/claimant

BMF Holdings Limited

Applicant/claimant

Business Mortgage Finance 3 PLC

Applicant/claimant

Business Mortgage Finance 4 PLC

Applicant/claimant

Business Mortgage Finance 5 PLC

Applicant/claimant

Business Mortgage Finance 6 PLC

Applicant/claimant

Business Mortgage Finance 7 PLC

Applicant/claimant

Kipling Firs Limited

Applicant/claimant

Tilman Holdings Limited

Applicant/claimant

Sanne Group PLC

Respondent/defendant

Sanne Group (UK) Limited

Respondent/defendant

Sanne Group Secretaries (UK) Limited

Respondent/defendant

Sanne Trustee Company (UK) Limited

Respondent/defendant

Martin Charles Schnaier

Respondent/defendant

Jason Christopher Bingham

Respondent/defendant

Beejadhursingh Surnam

Respondent/defendant

Coral Suzanne Bidel

Respondent/defendant

Marc Speight

Respondent/defendant

Simmons & Simmons LLP

Respondent/defendant

Caroline Hunter-Yeats

Respondent/defendant

Alexander Paul Riddiford

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Injunction Application (interlocutory) / High Court (chancery Division) Judgment on Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to an injunction restraining the respondents from obstructing the discharge of securities and use of funds
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has standing to bring the application
  3. 3 Whether there was a valid change of directors and/or sale of assets

Ratio Decidendi

The application for an injunction was dismissed as totally without merit because there was no admissible evidence of a valid asset sale, no standing for the applicant, no serious issue to be tried, and the application was an abuse of process aimed at interfering with ongoing legitimate litigation. The applicant failed to demonstrate any legal or factual basis for the relief sought.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed as totally without merit; costs awarded on indemnity basis; further directions and restrictions ordered.

Orders

  • Application for injunction dismissed
  • Application to join Ms Dilnot QC as party dismissed