Harada Ltd and Another v Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr E Murray |
| Judgment Date | 29 November 2013 |
| Docket Number | Case No: 7607/7608 of 2013 |
| Court | ChD (Companies & bankruptcy) |
| Date | 29 November 2013 |
[2013] EWHC 4155 (Comp)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CHANCERY DIVISION
COMPANIES COURT
The Rolls Building
7 Rolls Building
Fetter Lane
London, EC4A 1NL
Mr E Murray (Sitting as a Deputy Judge of the Chancery Division)
Case No: 7607/7608 of 2013
Ms S Dhadda appeared on behalf of the Claimants
Mr M Mullen appeared on behalf of the Defendant
Approved Judgment
THE DEPUTY JUDGE:
This is an application by Harada Limited and Berkeley Credit & Guarantee Limited to restrain the advertising of winding-up petitions presented against each of them by Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs ("HMRC") on 4 November 2013, Nos 7607 and 7608 of 2013. The winding-up petitions were due to be heard on 16 December 2013. There is currently a consent order for an interim injunction restraining the advertisement of the winding-up petitions until the determination of this application.
Harada Limited operates bureaux de change from 6 stores in central London. Berkeley Credit & Guarantee Limited is a pawn broking service operating from 12 stores around London. They are under a common control.
In April 2012 HMRC presented winding up petitions against the first applicant and also against Berkeley Credit & Finance Limited and Berkeley Safe Deposit Limited. Although there were petitions presented against these latter two companies, it was subsequently accepted by HMRC that both of them were dormant and that the petitions had been erroneously presented. It is accepted by HMRC that the petition presented against Berkeley Credit & Finance Limited should have been presented against Berkeley Credit & Guarantee Limited.
Regarding the petitions presented in April 2012, the petition debts were in relation to various liabilities including National Insurance, PAYE and Corporation Tax between 2009 and 2012. The petition debts were disputed and reports were submitted from Clarkson Hyde, a chartered accountancy firm, acting on behalf of the applicants. It is submitted on behalf of the applicants that those reports showed that no sums were due to HMRC in relation to that period.
In relation to those petitions, the applicants successfully applied to have the advertisement of the petitions restrained and subsequently, the petitions were dismissed pursuant to a consent order dated 15 August 2012. Other proceedings relevant to this application are a County Court action brought by the applicants on 17 July 2013 seeking a declaration that amounts sought by HMRC were compromised by an agreement evidenced in correspondence between the applicants and HMRC and by the consent order to which I have just referred. In relation to the County Court action, HMRC have filed an application for summary judgment dated 26 November 2013.
Another related proceeding is an application to the High Court made by the applicants on 30 July 2013 to restrain HMRC from presenting petitions to wind up the applicant, due to be heard on 10 February 2014. Presumably that application is now an application to dismiss the winding-up petitions.
Essentially, there are two issues in this case. The first issue is whether there was an agreement reached between the applicants and the respondent on 15 August 2012 under which all amounts due, or allegedly due, prior to that date were agreed to have been fully settled? The second issue is whether the applicants have a substantial dispute on bona fide grounds in relation to the debts covered by the petitions of November 2013, such that advertising of the petitions should not be permitted?
In relation to the evidence I have reviewed, I have two witness statements from Seamus Gavin, an in-house solicitor with Harada Limited, one dated 19 November 2013 and one dated 20 November 2013. There were...
To continue reading
Request your trial