Regalway Care Ltd v Shillingford & Ors

Regalway Care Ltd v Shillingford & Ors

The evidence raises serious questions as to whether the interveners were bona fide purchasers or knowing participants in MTIC fraud. The transactions are not sufficiently clear or credible to justify summary variation of the freezing order. The applications cannot be disposed of summarily and must be tried as separate issues with full disclosure and cross-examination.

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
Civil (chancery, Commercial Fraud) / Interlocutory Application for Variation of Freezing Order
Outcome
Applications for variation of freezing order refused at this stage; directed to be tried as separate issues.
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders, MTIC Fraud, Third Party Claims, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Knowing Assistance, Unlawful Means Conspiracy
Insolvency Commercial Law Civil Procedure Freezing Orders MTIC Fraud Third Party Claims Breach of Fiduciary Duty Knowing Assistance +1 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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
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

Civil (chancery, Commercial Fraud) / Interlocutory Application for Variation of Freezing Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the freezing order should be varied to permit EBST to pay out funds to the interveners (FTC, DC UK, Vita)
  2. 2 Whether the interveners were bona fide purchasers or knowing participants in MTIC fraud
  3. 3 Whether the transactions in question were genuine arms-length commercial transactions or part of a fraudulent scheme

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence raises serious questions as to whether the interveners were bona fide purchasers or knowing participants in MTIC fraud. The transactions are not sufficiently clear or credible to justify summary variation of the freezing order. The applications cannot be disposed of summarily and must be tried as separate issues with full disclosure and cross-examination.

Court Disposition

Applications for variation of freezing order refused at this stage; directed to be tried as separate issues.

Orders

  • Applications by FTC, DC UK, and Vita to vary the freezing order are refused summarily.
  • Claims of the interveners to be tried separately with directions for pleadings, disclosure, and witness statements.