Yuzu Hair And Beauty Ltd & Anor v Selvathiraviam

Yuzu Hair And Beauty Ltd & Anor v Selvathiraviam

The defendant was properly served with the freezing order and committal application by alternative means, was aware of his obligations, and deliberately failed to comply with the disclosure provisions. His repeated applications to adjourn on medical grounds were unsupported by credible evidence and were found to be contrived. The breaches of the order are established beyond reasonable doubt and are deliberate, flagrant, and continuing. The restoration of the claimant company under section 1032 Companies Act 2006 retrospectively validated its status as claimant. The court adjourned the sanction phase to allow the defendant a final opportunity to comply.

Parties
Claimant: Yuzu Hair and Beauty Ltd; Claimant: Yukiko Dennis; Defendant: Akilan Selvathiraviam
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Committal Application (civil Contempt) / Liability Judgment (sanction Adjourned)
Outcome
Defendant found in contempt of court for deliberate breach of disclosure obligations under freezing order; sanction adjourned.
Legal Topics
Committal for Contempt, Freezing Orders, Disclosure Obligations, Restoration of Dissolved Company, Service of Process
Civil Procedure Injunctions Company Law Committal for Contempt Freezing Orders Disclosure Obligations Restoration of Dissolved Company Service of Process

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

Parties

Yuzu Hair and Beauty Ltd

Claimant

Yukiko Dennis

Claimant

Akilan Selvathiraviam

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Committal Application (civil Contempt) / Liability Judgment (sanction Adjourned)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant breached disclosure obligations under a freezing order
  2. 2 Whether personal service of the committal application and orders was properly dispensed with
  3. 3 Effect of company dissolution and subsequent restoration on validity of orders and proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant was properly served with the freezing order and committal application by alternative means, was aware of his obligations, and deliberately failed to comply with the disclosure provisions. His repeated applications to adjourn on medical grounds were unsupported by credible evidence and were found to be contrived. The breaches of the order are established beyond reasonable doubt and are deliberate, flagrant, and continuing. The restoration of the claimant company under section 1032 Companies Act 2006 retrospectively validated its status as claimant. The court adjourned the sanction phase to allow the defendant a final opportunity to comply.

Court Disposition

Defendant found in contempt of court for deliberate breach of disclosure obligations under freezing order; sanction adjourned.

Orders

  • Sanction hearing adjourned for 28 days to allow defendant a final opportunity to comply with disclosure obligations.
  • Defendant ordered to attend the adjourned hearing; failure to attend may result in immediate imprisonment and/or arrest under bench warrant.