Finurba Corporate Finance Ltd v Sipp SA & Anor

Finurba Corporate Finance Ltd v Sipp SA & Anor

The claim against Sipp SA and Imaved was unmaintainable as pleaded, as there was no sufficient allegation or evidence to justify piercing the corporate veil or treating the Companies' assets as those of the Azevedos. The freezing order was properly discharged due to the weakness of the claim, lack of evidence of risk of dissipation, and the valuelessness of Finurba's cross-undertaking.

Parties
Appellant: Finurba Corporate Finance Limited; Respondent: Sipp SA; Respondent: Imaved Investimentos Imobiliarios SA
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 April 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal From High Court Decision
Outcome
Application for permission to appeal dismissed, with variation to allow Finurba a final opportunity to amend its claim within 21 days.
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Striking Out Pleadings, Piercing the Corporate Veil, Assignment of Claims, Risk of Dissipation of Assets
Civil Procedure Insolvency Company Law Freezing Injunctions Striking Out Pleadings Piercing the Corporate Veil Assignment of Claims Risk of Dissipation of Assets

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Finurba Corporate Finance Limited

Appellant

Sipp SA

Respondent

Imaved Investimentos Imobiliarios SA

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal From High Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim against Sipp SA and Imaved Investimentos Imobiliarios SA discloses a cause of action
  2. 2 Whether the freezing injunction against the Companies should be continued
  3. 3 Whether there is a properly arguable case to pierce the corporate veil or claim beneficial ownership of assets

Ratio Decidendi

The claim against Sipp SA and Imaved was unmaintainable as pleaded, as there was no sufficient allegation or evidence to justify piercing the corporate veil or treating the Companies' assets as those of the Azevedos. The freezing order was properly discharged due to the weakness of the claim, lack of evidence of risk of dissipation, and the valuelessness of Finurba's cross-undertaking.

Court Disposition

Application for permission to appeal dismissed, with variation to allow Finurba a final opportunity to amend its claim within 21 days.

Orders

  • Finurba given 21 days to amend its claim against the Companies; if not amended or amendment rejected, claim to be struck out.