Revenue & Customs v Sunico A/S & Ors [2012] EWHC 2892 (Ch) (19 October 2012)

Revenue & Customs v Sunico A/S & Ors [2012] EWHC 2892 (Ch) (19 October 2012)

Nari is entitled to discharge of the freezing order and costs on the standard basis, not indemnity, as the claim was not so exceptional as to warrant indemnity costs. Dayal is not entitled to immediate discharge of the freezing order due to insufficient evidence on asset control and risk of dissipation; the order continues in a reduced sum of US$14,764,612. Costs for Dayal are reserved except for three-quarters of his costs on the summary judgment and amendment applications, to be paid by HMRC on the standard basis.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 2892 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs; Defendant: Sunico A/S; Defendant: Sunil Kumar Harwani; Defendant: Mangharam Harwani; Defendant: Sunico Holdings ApS; Defendant: M&B Holdings A/S; Defendant: PT Naina Exim Indo; Defendant: Hashu Dhalomal Shadapuri; Defendant: Dayal Dhalomal Shadapuri; Defendant: Nari Premchand
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 October 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil / Post Summary Judgment; Applications for Consequential Orders
Outcome
Partial discharge and variation of orders; costs awarded in part; freezing order continued in reduced sum for Dayal.
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders, Summary Judgment, Costs Orders, Section 423 Insolvency Act 1986, Conspiracy to Defraud
Civil Procedure Insolvency Fraud Freezing Orders Summary Judgment Costs Orders Section 423 Insolvency Act 1986 Conspiracy to Defraud

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 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs

Claimant

Sunico A/S

Defendant

Sunil Kumar Harwani

Defendant

Mangharam Harwani

Defendant

Sunico Holdings ApS

Defendant

M&B Holdings A/S

Defendant

PT Naina Exim Indo

Defendant

Hashu Dhalomal Shadapuri

Defendant

Dayal Dhalomal Shadapuri

Defendant

Nari Premchand

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Post Summary Judgment; Applications for Consequential Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether freezing orders against Nari and Dayal should be discharged
  2. 2 Whether costs should be awarded on the indemnity or standard basis
  3. 3 Appropriate quantum for continuation of freezing order against Dayal

Ratio Decidendi

Nari is entitled to discharge of the freezing order and costs on the standard basis, not indemnity, as the claim was not so exceptional as to warrant indemnity costs. Dayal is not entitled to immediate discharge of the freezing order due to insufficient evidence on asset control and risk of dissipation; the order continues in a reduced sum of US$14,764,612. Costs for Dayal are reserved except for three-quarters of his costs on the summary judgment and amendment applications, to be paid by HMRC on the standard basis.

Court Disposition

Partial discharge and variation of orders; costs awarded in part; freezing order continued in reduced sum for Dayal.

Orders

  • Freezing order against Nari discharged.
  • HMRC to pay Nari's costs on standard basis for main action, freezing order application, and summary judgment/strike out application.