Lime And Black BPS Ltd v Gill & Ors [2024] EWHC 1898 (Ch) (24 July 2024)

Lime And Black BPS Ltd v Gill & Ors [2024] EWHC 1898 (Ch) (24 July 2024)

Mr Mistry was not a de facto director of the Company; the evidence did not establish that he directed or managed the Company, introduced clients, agreed fees, or acted on equal footing with Mr Gill. The Company failed to prove its case for breach of fiduciary duty, dishonest assistance, knowing receipt, or unlawful means conspiracy against Mr Mistry.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 1898 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Lime and Black BPS Limited (in liquidation); Defendant: Dharminder Singh Gill; Defendant: Kiran Kumar Mistry; Defendant: Oberon 11 Limited; Defendant: Lime & Black Corp Limited; Defendant: Squared Circle Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 July 2024
Procedural Posture
CPR Part 7 Claim / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim against Mr Mistry dismissed.
Legal Topics
De Facto Directorship, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Dishonest Assistance, Knowing Receipt, Unlawful Means Conspiracy, VAT Fraud
Company Law Insolvency Fraud De Facto Directorship Breach of Fiduciary Duty Dishonest Assistance Knowing Receipt Unlawful Means Conspiracy +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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lime and Black BPS Limited (in liquidation)

Claimant

Dharminder Singh Gill

Defendant

Kiran Kumar Mistry

Defendant

Oberon 11 Limited

Defendant

Lime & Black Corp Limited

Defendant

Squared Circle Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

CPR Part 7 Claim / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Mistry was a de facto director of the Company
  2. 2 Whether Mr Mistry breached fiduciary duties
  3. 3 Whether Mr Mistry dishonestly assisted breaches of duty

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Mistry was not a de facto director of the Company; the evidence did not establish that he directed or managed the Company, introduced clients, agreed fees, or acted on equal footing with Mr Gill. The Company failed to prove its case for breach of fiduciary duty, dishonest assistance, knowing receipt, or unlawful means conspiracy against Mr Mistry.

Court Disposition

Claim against Mr Mistry dismissed.

Orders

  • Freezing and proprietary injunctions against Mr Mistry discharged.
  • No order as to costs.