Revenue & Customs (HMRC) v Sunico A/S & Ors

Revenue & Customs (HMRC) v Sunico A/S & Ors

The claims of conspiracy and fraud against Dayal and Nari were inadequately pleaded, lacking sufficient particulars of knowledge and factual connection. The proposed amendments and particulars of knowledge were introduced too late and were weak, causing prejudice to the defendants. Accordingly, summary judgment was granted in favour of Dayal and Nari on the conspiracy claims. The new section 423 claims against them were time-barred and could not be raised. Video link evidence was permitted for Sunil and Mangharam, subject to HMRC's undertakings regarding arrest. Disclosure and admissibility issues regarding evidence were deferred to the trial judge.

Parties
Applicant/claimant: HMRC; Respondent/defendant: Sunico A/S; Respondent/defendant: Sunil Kumar Harwani; Respondent/defendant: Mangharam Harwani; Respondent/defendant: Sunico Holdings APS; Respondent/defendant: M&B Holdings A/S; Respondent/defendant: PT Naina Exim Indo; Respondent/defendant: Hashu Dalomal Shahdadpuri; Respondent/defendant: Dayal Dalomal Shahdadpuri; Respondent/defendant: Nari Premchand
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 October 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil / Pre Trial Hearing, Summary Judgment and Strike Out Applications
Outcome
Summary judgment granted in favour of Dayal and Nari on conspiracy claims; section 423 claims against them dismissed as time-barred; video link evidence permitted for Sunil and Mangharam; evidentiary and disclosure issues deferred to trial judge.
Legal Topics
MTIC Fraud, Conspiracy, Section 423 Insolvency Act 1986, Summary Judgment, Strike Out, Disclosure, Video Evidence
Civil Procedure Fraud Insolvency MTIC Fraud Conspiracy Section 423 Insolvency Act 1986 Summary Judgment Strike Out +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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HMRC

Applicant/claimant

Sunico A/S

Respondent/defendant

Sunil Kumar Harwani

Respondent/defendant

Mangharam Harwani

Respondent/defendant

Sunico Holdings APS

Respondent/defendant

M&B Holdings A/S

Respondent/defendant

PT Naina Exim Indo

Respondent/defendant

Hashu Dalomal Shahdadpuri

Respondent/defendant

Dayal Dalomal Shahdadpuri

Respondent/defendant

Nari Premchand

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Pre Trial Hearing, Summary Judgment and Strike Out Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Adequacy of pleadings for fraud and conspiracy
  2. 2 Summary judgment and strike-out standards
  3. 3 Application of section 423 Insolvency Act 1986

Ratio Decidendi

The claims of conspiracy and fraud against Dayal and Nari were inadequately pleaded, lacking sufficient particulars of knowledge and factual connection. The proposed amendments and particulars of knowledge were introduced too late and were weak, causing prejudice to the defendants. Accordingly, summary judgment was granted in favour of Dayal and Nari on the conspiracy claims. The new section 423 claims against them were time-barred and could not be raised. Video link evidence was permitted for Sunil and Mangharam, subject to HMRC's undertakings regarding arrest. Disclosure and admissibility issues regarding evidence were deferred to the trial judge.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment granted in favour of Dayal and Nari on conspiracy claims; section 423 claims against them dismissed as time-barred; video link evidence permitted for Sunil and Mangharam; evidentiary and disclosure issues deferred to trial judge.

Orders

  • Summary judgment dismissing conspiracy claims against Dayal and Nari.
  • Section 423 claims against Dayal and Nari dismissed as time-barred.