The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy v Rosenblatt [2016] EWHC 2821 (Ch) (9 November 2016)

The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy v Rosenblatt [2016] EWHC 2821 (Ch) (9 November 2016)

The court found that the defendant was the controlling mind of BMS, that BMS entered into 43 transactions connected with missing trader VAT fraud, and that the defendant either knew or should have known of the connection, given his experience, the nature of the transactions, and the inadequacy of due diligence. The...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 2821 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy; Defendant: Andrew Scott Rosenblatt
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Director's Disqualification Claim / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Director disqualified
Legal Topics
Director Disqualification, Unfit Conduct, VAT Fraud, Due Diligence, Company Insolvency
Company Law Insolvency Law Tax Law Director Disqualification Unfit Conduct VAT Fraud Due Diligence Company Insolvency

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 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy

Claimant

Andrew Scott Rosenblatt

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Director's Disqualification Claim / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's conduct as a director made him unfit to be concerned in the management of a company under section 6 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986
  2. 2 Whether the defendant knew or should have known that BMS's transactions were connected with VAT fraud

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendant was the controlling mind of BMS, that BMS entered into 43 transactions connected with missing trader VAT fraud, and that the defendant either knew or should have known of the connection, given his experience, the nature of the transactions, and the inadequacy of due diligence. The defendant's conduct fell below the standard expected of a company director and rendered him unfit to be concerned in company management under section 6 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986.

Court Disposition

Director disqualified

Orders

  • The defendant, Andrew Scott Rosenblatt, is disqualified from acting as a director or being concerned in the management of a company for a period to be determined in accordance with the judgment.