Regalway Care Ltd v Shillingford & Ors [2005] EWHC 261 (Ch) (25 February 2005)

Regalway Care Ltd v Shillingford & Ors [2005] EWHC 261 (Ch) (25 February 2005)

The court found that there were credible grounds to question whether the interveners were bona fide purchasers or knowing participants in MTIC fraud, and that the factual issues could not be resolved summarily. Accordingly, the applications to vary the freezing order to permit payment out to the interveners were...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2005] EWHC 261 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Regalway Care Limited (In Liquidation); Defendant: Abdul Malik Shillingford (also known as Abdul Malik); Defendant: A. V. A. H Trading Limited; Defendant: Victoria Clarke; Defendant: EBST Limited; Defendant: Imad Yacoub Shoubaki; Intervener: First Touch Communications Limited; Intervener: Direct Communication UK Limited; Intervener: Vita Moderna Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 February 2005
Procedural Posture
Chancery Division Civil Claim With Applications to Vary a Freezing Order / Interlocutory Applications to Vary Freezing Order; Judgment on Interveners' Applications
Outcome
Applications by interveners to vary the freezing order refused
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, MTIC (missing Trader Intra Community) Fraud, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Knowing Assistance, Unlawful Means Conspiracy, Third Party Intervention, Variation of Freezing Orders
Insolvency Commercial Law Fraud Equity Freezing Injunctions MTIC (missing Trader Intra Community) Fraud Breach of Fiduciary Duty Knowing Assistance +3 more

Source-derived case record

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regalway Care Limited (In Liquidation)

Claimant

Abdul Malik Shillingford (also known as Abdul Malik)

Defendant

A. V. A. H Trading Limited

Defendant

Victoria Clarke

Defendant

EBST Limited

Defendant

Imad Yacoub Shoubaki

Defendant

First Touch Communications Limited

Intervener

Direct Communication UK Limited

Intervener

Vita Moderna Limited

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Chancery Division Civil Claim With Applications to Vary a Freezing Order / Interlocutory Applications to Vary Freezing Order; Judgment on Interveners' Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the freezing order against EBST Limited should be varied to permit payments to the interveners
  2. 2 Whether the interveners' claims arise from bona fide obligations
  3. 3 Whether the interveners were participants in MTIC fraud or bona fide purchasers

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that there were credible grounds to question whether the interveners were bona fide purchasers or knowing participants in MTIC fraud, and that the factual issues could not be resolved summarily. Accordingly, the applications to vary the freezing order to permit payment out to the interveners were refused, pending trial or further order.

Court Disposition

Applications by interveners to vary the freezing order refused

Orders

  • The freezing order remains in place against the defendants, including EBST Limited, pending trial or further order.
  • No payment out of frozen assets to the interveners is permitted at this stage.