S Dunhill General Industries v Housepower Properties [2001] EWHC 2003 (QB) (19 February 2001)

S Dunhill General Industries v Housepower Properties [2001] EWHC 2003 (QB) (19 February 2001)

There is good reason to suppose Dr Fisher is the beneficial owner of the respondent company, which has been used as a device to conceal assets and defraud creditors. The respondent's assets, including rights of action, should be preserved for the benefit of creditors. It is just and convenient to appoint a receiver...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2001] EWHC 2003
Parties
Claimant: S Dunhill General Industries; Defendant: Housepower Properties
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 February 2001
Procedural Posture
Application Under Section 37(1) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 / Judgment on Application for Appointment of Receiver and Interim Order
Outcome
Application granted
Legal Topics
Appointment of Receiver, Freezing Injunction, Lifting the Corporate Veil, Beneficial Ownership, Fraudulent Disposition of Assets
Civil Procedure Insolvency Company Law Appointment of Receiver Freezing Injunction Lifting the Corporate Veil Beneficial Ownership Fraudulent Disposition of Assets

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S Dunhill General Industries

Claimant

Housepower Properties

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application Under Section 37(1) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 / Judgment on Application for Appointment of Receiver and Interim Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a receiver should be appointed over the respondent company under section 37(1) of the Supreme Court Act 1981
  2. 2 Whether the corporate veil should be lifted to treat the respondent's assets as those of Dr Fisher
  3. 3 Whether Dr Fisher is the beneficial owner of the respondent company

Ratio Decidendi

There is good reason to suppose Dr Fisher is the beneficial owner of the respondent company, which has been used as a device to conceal assets and defraud creditors. The respondent's assets, including rights of action, should be preserved for the benefit of creditors. It is just and convenient to appoint a receiver to protect and pursue these assets, and the corporate veil should be lifted to achieve justice.

Court Disposition

Application granted

Orders

  • Receiver to be appointed over the respondent company; precise form of order and costs to be determined after further submissions