Kurvits & Anor v Kender & Ors (Re Zaum UK Ltd - Insolvency Act 1986) [2024] EWHC 3622 (Ch) (24 October 2024)

Kurvits & Anor v Kender & Ors (Re Zaum UK Ltd - Insolvency Act 1986) [2024] EWHC 3622 (Ch) (24 October 2024)

The court has jurisdiction to order responses to Part 18 requests before service of a defence if the matters are in dispute and the information sought is reasonably necessary and proportionate for the respondents to understand and prepare their case. The requests in question meet these criteria, except for the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 3622 (Ch)
Parties
Petitioner: Robert Kurvits; Petitioner: Sander Taal; Respondent: Kaur Kender; Respondent: TÜTREKE OÜ; Respondent: YESSIRNOSIR LIMITED; Respondent: Zaum UK Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Company Winding Up Petition (just and Equitable) / Interlocutory Application for Further Information Under CPR Part 18
Outcome
Part 18 applications granted in part
Legal Topics
Winding Up on Just and Equitable Ground, Part 18 Requests for Further Information, Shareholder Disputes, Intellectual Property in Corporate Context
Insolvency Company Law Civil Procedure Winding Up on Just and Equitable Ground Part 18 Requests for Further Information Shareholder Disputes Intellectual Property in Corporate Context

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Kurvits

Petitioner

Sander Taal

Petitioner

Kaur Kender

Respondent

TÜTREKE OÜ

Respondent

YESSIRNOSIR LIMITED

Respondent

Zaum UK Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Company Winding Up Petition (just and Equitable) / Interlocutory Application for Further Information Under CPR Part 18

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court can order responses to Part 18 requests before service of a defence
  2. 2 Whether the matters in the Part 18 requests are 'in dispute' within the meaning of CPR 18.1
  3. 3 Whether the information sought is reasonably necessary and proportionate for the respondents to prepare their case

Ratio Decidendi

The court has jurisdiction to order responses to Part 18 requests before service of a defence if the matters are in dispute and the information sought is reasonably necessary and proportionate for the respondents to understand and prepare their case. The requests in question meet these criteria, except for the request regarding the removal of Mr Taal, for which sufficient information has already been provided.

Court Disposition

Part 18 applications granted in part

Orders

  • Petitioners are ordered to answer all Part 18 requests identified in the judgment, except the request regarding the removal of Mr Taal, within 21 days.