GLAS SAS (London Branch) v European Topsoho SARL & Ors

GLAS SAS (London Branch) v European Topsoho SARL & Ors

Summary judgment is refused on the main claims as the Defendants' case, while weak and riddled with inconsistencies and evidential gaps, is not so hopeless as to be determined without trial. However, the Defendants' (Dynamic and Ms Qiu) participation in the proceedings is conditional on each paying €9,000,000 into court, reflecting the weakness of their defence and their prior non-compliance. Dynamic's application for relief from sanctions and extension of time to challenge jurisdiction is refused due to significant delay, lack of good reason, and disruption caused. Ms Qiu's application for an extension of time to file her Defence is granted, subject to the payment condition. Summary...

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
11 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Commercial / Interlocutory Judgment on Applications for Summary Judgment, Extensions of Time, and Relief From Sanctions
Outcome
Summary judgment refused on main claims; summary judgment granted for Deferred Fee; conditional orders imposed for Defendants to defend; applications for relief from sanctions and jurisdictional challenge refused.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Jurisdiction, Relief From Sanctions, Unlawful Means Conspiracy, Section 423 Insolvency Act 1986, Trust Deeds, Enforcement of Foreign Judgments
Commercial Law Insolvency Law Civil Procedure Summary Judgment Jurisdiction Relief From Sanctions Unlawful Means Conspiracy Section 423 Insolvency Act 1986 +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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
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 / Interlocutory Judgment on Applications for Summary Judgment, Extensions of Time, and Relief From Sanctions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether summary judgment should be granted on claims of unlawful means conspiracy and under section 423 Insolvency Act 1986
  2. 2 Whether extensions of time to file defences and challenge jurisdiction should be granted to Dynamic and Ms Qiu
  3. 3 Whether relief from sanctions should be granted to Dynamic for late acknowledgment of service

Ratio Decidendi

Summary judgment is refused on the main claims as the Defendants' case, while weak and riddled with inconsistencies and evidential gaps, is not so hopeless as to be determined without trial. However, the Defendants' (Dynamic and Ms Qiu) participation in the proceedings is conditional on each paying €9,000,000 into court, reflecting the weakness of their defence and their prior non-compliance. Dynamic's application for relief from sanctions and extension of time to challenge jurisdiction is refused due to significant delay, lack of good reason, and disruption caused. Ms Qiu's application for an extension of time to file her Defence is granted, subject to the payment condition. Summary...

Court Disposition

Summary judgment refused on main claims; summary judgment granted for Deferred Fee; conditional orders imposed for Defendants to defend; applications for relief from sanctions and jurisdictional challenge refused.

Orders

  • Summary judgment for GLAS against ETS for Deferred Fee of €5,000,000.
  • Ms Qiu and Dynamic may file and serve a Defence only if each pays €9,000,000 into court.