Bloomsbury International Ltd & Ors v Holyoake & Ors [2010] EWHC 1150 (Ch) (21 May 2010)

Bloomsbury International Ltd & Ors v Holyoake & Ors [2010] EWHC 1150 (Ch) (21 May 2010)

The cross-undertaking given by the claimants in the freezing orders is insufficient and must be fortified by a bank guarantee of £4 million due to risk of uncompensated harm to defendants. The prior professional relationship between Deloitte LLP and Mr Holyoake does not constitute ongoing conflict or justify...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 1150 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Bloomsbury International Limited (in administration); Claimant: British Seafood Limited (in administration); Claimant: Seafood Intermediate Company 1 Limited (in administration); Claimant: British Seafood Holdings (in administration); Defendant/applicant: Mark Alan Holyoake; Defendant/applicant: David Clive Wells; Defendant: East Sea Commodities Limited; Defendant: Eastern Seafood Limited; Defendant: Emperor Seafood Limited; Defendant: Hawk Trading Limited; Defendant: Man Tat Foods Limited; Defendant: South China Vessel Trading Limited; Defendant: Tidal Trade Limited; Defendant: Aspac Holdings Limited; Defendant: Puma Trading Limited; Defendant: Puma Capital Limited; Defendant: Laurence Mark Holyoake; Defendant: Ocean Pacific International Limited; Defendant: Puma Property Limited; Defendant: Wellgold LLP; Defendant: Hazelend LLP; Defendant: Jaybright LLP; Respondent: Matthew David Smith; Respondent: Nicholas Guy Edwards; Respondent: Louise Mary Brittain
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 May 2010
Procedural Posture
Company/insolvency Proceedings / Interlocutory Applications (fortification and Conflict)
Outcome
Fortification application granted; conflict application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders, Cross Undertaking in Damages, Administrator Conflict of Interest, Appointment of Additional Administrators, Confidential Information
Insolvency Company Law Civil Procedure Freezing Orders Cross Undertaking in Damages Administrator Conflict of Interest Appointment of Additional Administrators Confidential Information

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 12
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bloomsbury International Limited (in administration)

Claimant

British Seafood Limited (in administration)

Claimant

Seafood Intermediate Company 1 Limited (in administration)

Claimant

British Seafood Holdings (in administration)

Claimant

Mark Alan Holyoake

Defendant/applicant

David Clive Wells

Defendant/applicant

East Sea Commodities Limited

Defendant

Eastern Seafood Limited

Defendant

Emperor Seafood Limited

Defendant

Hawk Trading Limited

Defendant

Man Tat Foods Limited

Defendant

South China Vessel Trading Limited

Defendant

Tidal Trade Limited

Defendant

Aspac Holdings Limited

Defendant

Puma Trading Limited

Defendant

Puma Capital Limited

Defendant

Laurence Mark Holyoake

Defendant

Ocean Pacific International Limited

Defendant

Puma Property Limited

Defendant

Wellgold LLP

Defendant

Hazelend LLP

Defendant

Jaybright LLP

Defendant

Matthew David Smith

Respondent

Nicholas Guy Edwards

Respondent

Louise Mary Brittain

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Company/insolvency Proceedings / Interlocutory Applications (fortification and Conflict)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether cross-undertakings in freezing orders should be fortified
  2. 2 Whether administrators have a conflict of interest due to prior professional relationship with defendant
  3. 3 Whether confidential information held by administrators warrants appointment of additional administrators

Ratio Decidendi

The cross-undertaking given by the claimants in the freezing orders is insufficient and must be fortified by a bank guarantee of £4 million due to risk of uncompensated harm to defendants. The prior professional relationship between Deloitte LLP and Mr Holyoake does not constitute ongoing conflict or justify appointment of additional administrators, as retainers are terminated and information barriers are adequate.

Court Disposition

Fortification application granted; conflict application dismissed.

Orders

  • Claimants must fortify cross-undertakings in freezing orders by provision of a bank guarantee in the sum of £4 million.
  • Conflict application for appointment of additional administrators is dismissed.