Integral Petroleum SA v Petrogat FZE & Ors [2023] EWHC 44 (Comm) (18 January 2023)

Integral Petroleum SA v Petrogat FZE & Ors [2023] EWHC 44 (Comm) (18 January 2023)

The transfers from Petrogat to Company A were transactions at an undervalue made for the prohibited purpose of putting assets beyond the reach of Integral, a creditor, at a time when claims were being pursued. Integral was a victim under section 423(5). The court had jurisdiction due to sufficient connection with England and Wales. Relief was appropriate against the individuals controlling Company A due to their refusal to identify the company and their control over the assets.

Citation
[2023] EWHC 44 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Integral Petroleum S. A.; First Defendant: Petrogat FZE; Second Defendant: Ms Mahdieh Sanchouli; Third Defendant: Mr Hosseinali Sanchouli; Fourth Defendant: Mr Kanybek Beisenov
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 January 2023
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Claim Under Section 423 Insolvency Act 1986 / Judgment on Application for Relief After Defence Struck Out and Defendants Debarred
Outcome
Claim allowed. Relief granted under section 423 Insolvency Act 1986.
Legal Topics
Transactions Defrauding Creditors, Section 423 Insolvency Act 1986, Worldwide Freezing Order, Restorative Relief, Jurisdiction Over Foreign Parties
Insolvency Commercial Law Civil Procedure Transactions Defrauding Creditors Section 423 Insolvency Act 1986 Worldwide Freezing Order Restorative Relief Jurisdiction Over Foreign Parties

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 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Integral Petroleum S. A.

Claimant

Petrogat FZE

First Defendant

Ms Mahdieh Sanchouli

Second Defendant

Mr Hosseinali Sanchouli

Third Defendant

Mr Kanybek Beisenov

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Claim Under Section 423 Insolvency Act 1986 / Judgment on Application for Relief After Defence Struck Out and Defendants Debarred

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Were the transfers transactions at an undervalue within section 423(1) of the Insolvency Act 1986?
  2. 2 Were the transfers made for a prohibited purpose under section 423(3)?
  3. 3 Was Integral Petroleum S.A. a 'victim' under section 423(5)?

Ratio Decidendi

The transfers from Petrogat to Company A were transactions at an undervalue made for the prohibited purpose of putting assets beyond the reach of Integral, a creditor, at a time when claims were being pursued. Integral was a victim under section 423(5). The court had jurisdiction due to sufficient connection with England and Wales. Relief was appropriate against the individuals controlling Company A due to their refusal to identify the company and their control over the assets.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed. Relief granted under section 423 Insolvency Act 1986.

Orders

  • Declaration that the transfers were transactions defrauding creditors within section 423.
  • Order requiring Ms Mahdieh Sanchouli and Mr Kanybek Beisenov to pay Integral Petroleum S.A. US$1,700,613.52 plus interest and costs.