GLAS SAS (London Branch) v European Topsoho SarL & Ors [2024] EWHC 83 (Comm) (26 January 2024)

GLAS SAS (London Branch) v European Topsoho SarL & Ors [2024] EWHC 83 (Comm) (26 January 2024)

Summary judgment is refused because, despite the Defendants' explanations being weak and improbable, there remain triable issues regarding the authenticity and effect of the disputed documents and the Defendants' involvement. Dynamic and Ms Qiu are refused extensions of time to challenge jurisdiction due to significant, deliberate delay and lack of relevant change in circumstances. Ms Qiu is granted an extension of time to file her Defence. The court will consider imposing conditions (such as payment into court) on Dynamic and Ms Qiu due to the weakness of their defences.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 83 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: GLAS SAS (London Branch); First Defendant: European Topsoho SARL; Second Defendant: Dynamic Treasure Group Limited; Third Defendant: Chenran Qiu
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 January 2024
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Claim (summary Judgment Application) / Interlocutory (applications for Summary Judgment, Extensions of Time, and Jurisdictional Challenges)
Outcome
Summary judgment refused (except on one limited point affecting ETS alone); Dynamic and Ms Qiu refused extensions of time to challenge jurisdiction; Ms Qiu granted extension of time to file Defence; court to consider imposing conditions on Defendants' ability to defend.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Jurisdiction, Relief From Sanctions, Unlawful Means Conspiracy, Transactions at an Undervalue, Trustee Claims, Freezing Orders
Commercial Law Insolvency Law Civil Procedure Summary Judgment Jurisdiction Relief From Sanctions Unlawful Means Conspiracy Transactions at an Undervalue +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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

GLAS SAS (London Branch)

Claimant

European Topsoho SARL

First Defendant

Dynamic Treasure Group Limited

Second Defendant

Chenran Qiu

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Claim (summary Judgment Application) / Interlocutory (applications for Summary Judgment, Extensions of Time, and Jurisdictional Challenges)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether summary judgment should be granted to GLAS on its claims under s.423 Insolvency Act 1986 and for unlawful means conspiracy
  2. 2 Whether Dynamic and Ms Qiu should be granted extensions of time to challenge jurisdiction or to file defences
  3. 3 Whether the court should impose conditions (such as payment into court) on the Defendants' ability to defend

Ratio Decidendi

Summary judgment is refused because, despite the Defendants' explanations being weak and improbable, there remain triable issues regarding the authenticity and effect of the disputed documents and the Defendants' involvement. Dynamic and Ms Qiu are refused extensions of time to challenge jurisdiction due to significant, deliberate delay and lack of relevant change in circumstances. Ms Qiu is granted an extension of time to file her Defence. The court will consider imposing conditions (such as payment into court) on Dynamic and Ms Qiu due to the weakness of their defences.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment refused (except on one limited point affecting ETS alone); Dynamic and Ms Qiu refused extensions of time to challenge jurisdiction; Ms Qiu granted extension of time to file Defence; court to consider imposing conditions on Defendants' ability to defend.

Orders

  • Summary judgment application refused as against all Defendants except on one limited point affecting ETS alone.
  • Dynamic's application for extension of time to challenge jurisdiction refused.