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 is a mere device to conceal assets. The respondent's rights of action are assets that require preservation. Justice and convenience require the appointment of a receiver to protect these assets for the benefit of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2001] EWHC 2003 (QB)
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 Injunctions, Lifting the Corporate Veil, Beneficial Ownership, Asset Preservation
Civil Procedure Insolvency Company Law Appointment of Receiver Freezing Injunctions Lifting the Corporate Veil Beneficial Ownership Asset Preservation

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 6
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 is a mere device to conceal assets. The respondent's rights of action are assets that require preservation. Justice and convenience require the appointment of a receiver to protect these assets for the benefit of creditors, and the corporate veil should be lifted.

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