Umbrella Care Ltd (In Provisional Liquidation) v Khair Un Nisa & Ors

Umbrella Care Ltd (In Provisional Liquidation) v Khair Un Nisa & Ors

The court found that, based on the evidence and lack of explanation from the defendants, there is a good arguable case for increasing the amount frozen under the injunction to £26.8 million, and that the risk of dissipation persists, justifying continuation of the injunction.

Parties
Claimant: Umbrella Care Limited (In Provisional Liquidation); Defendant: Khair Un Nisa; Defendant: Usman Khalid Raja; Defendant: Emil Cervenak; Defendant: Dynamic Int Ltd; Defendant: Universal Real Estate (Pvt) Ltd; Defendant: Universal Total Care Ltd; Defendant: First International Holdings Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 August 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application for Continuation and Increase of Freezing Injunction
Outcome
Freezing injunction continued and increased
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunction, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Misappropriation of Company Assets, Risk of Dissipation
Company Law Insolvency Civil Procedure Freezing Injunction Breach of Fiduciary Duty Misappropriation of Company Assets Risk of Dissipation

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

Parties

Umbrella Care Limited (In Provisional Liquidation)

Claimant

Khair Un Nisa

Defendant

Usman Khalid Raja

Defendant

Emil Cervenak

Defendant

Dynamic Int Ltd

Defendant

Universal Real Estate (Pvt) Ltd

Defendant

Universal Total Care Ltd

Defendant

First International Holdings Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application for Continuation and Increase of Freezing Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to increase the amount frozen under the injunction from £16.2 million to £26,892,537.19
  2. 2 Whether there is a good arguable case of further misappropriation or trading while insolvent
  3. 3 Whether the risk of dissipation persists

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, based on the evidence and lack of explanation from the defendants, there is a good arguable case for increasing the amount frozen under the injunction to £26.8 million, and that the risk of dissipation persists, justifying continuation of the injunction.

Court Disposition

Freezing injunction continued and increased

Orders

  • The freezing injunction is continued for a further 13 days.
  • The amount frozen is increased to £26,892,537.19.