Brian William Milne, Liquidator Of Premier Housewares (scotland) Llp Against Naeem Rashid
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judge | Lord Clark |
| Neutral Citation | [2018] CSOH 23 |
| Date | 14 March 2018 |
| Docket Number | P448/17 |
| Court | Court of Session |
| Published date | 14 March 2018 |
OUTER HOUSE, COURT OF SESSION
[2018] CSOH 23
P448/17
OPINION OF LORD CLARK
In the cause
BRIAN WILLIAM MILNE, LIQUIDATOR OF PREMIER HOUSEWARES (SCOTLAND) LLP
Noter
against
NAEEM RASHID
Respondent
Noter: Broome; MacRoberts LLP
Respondent: Welsh; DAC Beachcroft Scotland LLP
14 March 2018
Introduction
[1] The noter is the liquidator of Premier Housewares (Scotland) LLP (“the LLP”). The
respondent was a member of the LLP. A winding-up order in respect of the LLP was made on
29 February 2016. In this case, the noter seeks an order under section 214A of the Insolvency
Act 1986 (“the 1986 Act”) for recovery of sums withdrawn by the respondent from the LLP in the
two year period before the granting of the winding up order. Prior to winding-up, the LLP had
been in administration, the administrator having been appointed on 22 December 2014.
[2] The withdrawals by the respondent which are the subject of the present claim were made
monthly from March 2014 to December 2014. The total sum withdrawn was £78,259.84. The
2
basis for the noter’s claim, in terms of section 214A of the 1986 Act, is that the respondent knew
or had reasonable grounds for believing that at the time of each of the withdrawals the LLP was
unable to pay its debts within the meaning of section 123 of the 1986 Act, and that he knew or
ought to have concluded at the time of each withdrawal that there was no reasonable prospect
that the LLP would avoid going into insolvent liquidation. The respondent denies these
allegations. The case called before me for a proof before answer on the parties’ averments in the
Note and Answers.
The evidence
[3] The noter gave evidence, in which he explained how his appointment had come about,
the investigations he had conducted and the information which he had obtained. He explained
that the respondent was appointed as a member of the LLP on 17 November 2003. The other
members of the LLP were Anjum Mobarik, Shokat Mobarik and Riaz Mobarik. Anjum and
Shokat Mobarik are brothers and Riaz Mobarik is their father. Riaz Mobarik resigned as a
member of the LLP with effect from 1 January 2005. Each member of the LLP has been, at some
point, a director of LTC Distributors Limited (“LTC”), which had significant business links with
the LLP. The noter explained his understanding of the financial position of the LLP at the
material times and what, in his view, the respondent knew or ought to have concluded.
[4] On behalf of the respondent, evidence was led firstly from Mr Akmal Khushi. Mr Khushi
is a director of and shareholder in a company which owns a major international retail business in
the field of outdoor goods and sportswear. He is a respected member of the business community
and has known the Mobarik family for many years. His evidence primarily concerned a meeting
in July 2014 at which Heads of Agreement were reached in an effort to resolve differences
between Anjum and Shokat Mobarik.
To continue reading
Request your trial