Mercia Enterprises Ltd v Mistry [2020] EWHC 1597 (QB) (19 June 2020)

Mercia Enterprises Ltd v Mistry [2020] EWHC 1597 (QB) (19 June 2020)

The appeal was dismissed because, regardless of whether the Santander account was a company or personal account, the first defendant had sole control over the funds, failed to account for them, and appropriated them for her own use. The judge was entitled to find her personally liable for money had and received, as the company was used as a smokescreen and there was no satisfactory explanation or disclosure as to the destination of the funds.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 1597
Parties
Respondent/claimant: Mercia Enterprises Ltd; Appellant/defendant: Pratibha Mistry; Appellant/defendant: UPAL
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / High Court Appeal From County Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Money Had and Received, Personal Liability of Company Directors, Corporate Veil, Disclosure Obligations, Trust and Fiduciary Duties
Civil Procedure Contract Law Equity Money Had and Received Personal Liability of Company Directors Corporate Veil Disclosure Obligations Trust and Fiduciary Duties

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mercia Enterprises Ltd

Respondent/claimant

Pratibha Mistry

Appellant/defendant

UPAL

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / High Court Appeal From County Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first defendant (Pratibha Mistry) was personally liable for money had and received to the claimant
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge failed to consider evidence that the relevant bank account was a company account and not a personal account
  3. 3 Whether the corporate veil should be pierced in the absence of dishonesty or bad faith

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because, regardless of whether the Santander account was a company or personal account, the first defendant had sole control over the funds, failed to account for them, and appropriated them for her own use. The judge was entitled to find her personally liable for money had and received, as the company was used as a smokescreen and there was no satisfactory explanation or disclosure as to the destination of the funds.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; judgment against Pratibha Mistry in the sum of £12,735.44 stands