Singla v Hedman & Ors

Singla v Hedman & Ors

The court held that on the evidence before it, it could not conclude that Mr Hedman knew or ought to have known on 24 March 2006 that there was no reasonable prospect of avoiding insolvent liquidation. The facts require fuller investigation at trial, and Mr Hedman has a realistic prospect of success. Summary judgment is therefore refused.

Parties
Applicant: Surjit Singla; First Respondent: Thomas Hedman; Second Respondent: Gone to Hell Limited; Third Respondent: Stonewood Communications BV
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 November 2009
Procedural Posture
Insolvency Application (summary Judgment) / Summary Judgment Application
Outcome
Application for summary judgment dismissed
Legal Topics
Wrongful Trading, Director's Liability, Summary Judgment, Film Production Financing
Insolvency Law Company Law Wrongful Trading Director's Liability Summary Judgment Film Production Financing

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Surjit Singla

Applicant

Thomas Hedman

First Respondent

Gone to Hell Limited

Second Respondent

Stonewood Communications BV

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Insolvency Application (summary Judgment) / Summary Judgment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Hedman, as director, knew or ought to have known by 24 March 2006 that there was no reasonable prospect that the Company would avoid going into insolvent liquidation under s.214 Insolvency Act 1986
  2. 2 Whether summary judgment should be granted against Mr Hedman for wrongful trading

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that on the evidence before it, it could not conclude that Mr Hedman knew or ought to have known on 24 March 2006 that there was no reasonable prospect of avoiding insolvent liquidation. The facts require fuller investigation at trial, and Mr Hedman has a realistic prospect of success. Summary judgment is therefore refused.

Court Disposition

Application for summary judgment dismissed

Orders

  • Application for summary judgment against Mr Hedman is dismissed