Lexi Holdings Plc ((in Administration)) v Luqman
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Mummery,Lord Justice Lawrence Collins,Lord Justice Hughes,Lord Justice Jacob,Lord Justice Wilson,The Chancellor,Lord Justice Richards,Lady Justice Hallett |
| Judgment Date | 26 February 2009 |
| Neutral Citation | [2009] EWCA Civ 117,[2007] EWCA Civ 1070,[2007] EWCA Civ 888,[2008] EWCA Civ 263 |
| Docket Number | Case No: A3/2007/2704,Case No: 2007/1663/A3,Case No: A3/2007/1192,Case No: A3/2008/1977 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 26 February 2009 |
Lord Justice Hughes and
Lord Justice Lawrence Collins
Case No: A3/2007/1192
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
MR JUSTICE PUMFREY)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Mr G Fadipe (instructed by Finer Stephens Innocent LLP) appeared on behalf of the Appellant.
Mr P Jones QC (instructed by Messrs DLA Piper UK Ltd) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
Lexi Holdings Plc entered into administration in October 2006, and its joint administrators are partners in KPMG. The principal activity of the company was the provision of bridging loan finance for the purpose of the acquisition of property. The loans were mostly to commercial property developers and the company obtained finance for its activities from a revolving credit facility of about £120 million, and under the terms of the facility all of the company's receipts were to be paid into an account with Barclays in relation to which Barclays alone would have signing rights. The administrators claimed that the company had made in breach of these arrangements substantial loans or sales to companies owned or controlled by Mr Luqman, the first defendant, and that he and his co-directors paid large sums of money into other accounts which were then misappropriated.
The applicant today is Mr McGarry, who was a partner in a firm of surveyors and valuers called Dunlop Heywoods. The administrators' case was that Mr McGarry provided valuations on certain properties to which the company advanced funds and that about £625,000 of the company's money was paid into accounts held in his name, at the London Branch of the United National Bank (“UNB”) in Brook Street, Mayfair, and then into an account standing in his name with LGT Bank in Liechtenstein. The administrators' case was that there was no legitimate basis for that payment and that Mr McGarry held the money on constructive trust with alternative pleas for monies handed and received or for equitable compensation.
Mr McGarry was one of the respondents to a freezing order made on 13 November 2006 by David Richards J containing extensive disclosure provisions. Following non-compliance by the respondents, including Mr McGarry, a further order was made by Briggs J on 14 December 2006, and in particular by that order Mr McGarry was required by 4 pm on 21 December 2006 to swear and serve an affidavit complying with the earlier order to the best of his recollection and belief on the basis of the materials and documents available to him and he was ordered to take all reasonable steps to obtain copies of further relevant documentation seized from him by the police or the Serious Fraud Office and his banks. When such documentation came into his possession he was required to swear and serve a further affidavit setting out such further information that he would then possess.
The reason for that provision was that in an entirely unrelated complaint relating to his activities as a valuer, there had been an investigation by the Serious Fraud Office which had taken into custody the greater part of the documentation which was then in his possession, custody or power. He failed to comply with either of the orders, and on 1 March 2007 the company applied for an Unless Order requiring him to comply in full with his obligations under the two orders within seven days, failing which his defence was to be struck out and the company was to be at liberty to enter judgment. Blackburne J made the order on 8 March 2007 and on 15 March 2007, there having been no compliance, the company applied for judgment and was granted it.
On 15 March 2007, the same day on which final judgment was entered, Mr McGarry applied for the judgment of Blackburne J to be set aside and for the Particulars of Claim to be struck out. In that application he accepted that the transfer of £625,000 had been made to him as a loan from one of the Lexi group companies but he said that he had repaid £678,000 into the accounts of the company. He also claimed that any document purporting to record a transfer from the company's account with UNB into his account at the LGT bank in Liechtenstein was wrong, as no such transfer had ever taken place. He said that he destroyed all his correspondence but he produced a redacted bank statement. He declined to tell Pumfrey J, who heard the application, what the money was used for, if at all, but he said that the fact that he had repaid the money was so clear that the Particulars of Claim should be struck out on the footing that it was perfectly plain that he had returned everything to the company.
Pumfrey J held that the circumstances of the payments and the explanation for them were plainly unsatisfactory, Mr McGarry had never disclosed any bank statements which revealed the entire course of his dealing, nor had he explained why the payment was made when it was made. He accepted that it was possible that Mr McGarry had a defence, but it was quite impossible to say that it was so unanswerable that the claim should be struck out. That application had no foundation.
As regards Mr McGarry's application for relief from sanctions, the judge said that Mr McGarry had accepted that he had been served with the application under the order and that the order was a regular order and that the only question was whether he should obtain relief against the sanctions which had been imposed. The judge took as his starting point the factors in CPR 3.9, which lists nine factors which the court would take into account on an application for relief from any sanction imposed for a failure to comply with any rule, and decided in terms of the factors; that the application for relief was prompt but that Mr McGarry had never had any real intention to comply with the orders, the destruction of many of his relevant documents would have made compliance very difficult and that the failure to comply was deliberate; the effect of the failure to comply was uncertain; and the company had been left in an even greater degree of uncertainty as to its past commercial history than was necessary. The application was not supported by evidence but it was also unaccompanied by any recognition that there had been a failure to comply with the Unless Order.
The judge said that he was required by the decision of the Court of Appeal in CIBC Mellon Trust Co Ltd v Stolzenberg [2004] EWCA Civ 827 para 1778 to form an overall impression of what was best to do in all the circumstances. Mr McGarry's case was that judgment had been entered against him for nearly £700,000 which he had in fact paid. Against that the judge said that he had to consider Mr McGarry's complete reluctance to put all the cards on the table and be frank about the transactions into which he had entered. He was satisfied that the order was a proportionate and reasonable response to the repeated failures to comply with the orders of the court. Accordingly, he declined to accede to Mr McGarry's application to be able to continue to defend the action and dismissed his application.
On this application Mr McGarry admits that at the outset his default in complying with the orders was, at least in part, deliberate. He has now very dramatically changed his account of the payments. He now admits that he received a total of about £1 million from Lexi accounts between January and March 2006, which he says was received by way of a loan pursuant to an oral agreement between himself and Mr Luqman. All of the payments went to his accounts at UNB. The funds were intended as bridging finance and he repaid £684,000 in March 2006, and bought and sold shares or similar investments eventually affecting the repayment on 28 March 2006. He says he attempted to repay a further sum of £225,000 from his UNB account to that of the Lexi account but the payment was returned to him. Accordingly, he accepts that, in any event, the company would be entitled to judgment in the sum of about £316,000 if it is the true owner of the UNB account. I add that Henderson J has recently decided on a committal application relating to Mr Luqman that the UNB account did indeed belong to the company. Mr McGarry says that it was disproportionate and wrong to prevent him from defending the claim altogether, although he accepts that there is a public interest in the court ensuring that its orders are complied with.
The principal matter taken today by Mr Fadipe on Mr McGarry's behalf is that Blackburne J's order was irregular because of a failure to serve the application notice at least three days before the hearing of the application CPR 23.7(1)(b). The facts relating to service are as follows. The application notice was sent on Friday 2 March by the company's solicitors to Mr McGarry both by courier and also by special delivery. The deemed date of service was Saturday 3 March for the courier delivery and Sunday 4 March for the special delivery ( CPR 6.7(1)), the effect of which is the subject of Anderton v Clwyd County Council (No 2) [2002] EWCA Civ 3174, [2002] 1 WLR 3174. The hearing was to be on 8 March and three days' notice had to be given. Saturdays and Sundays are excluded from the calculation where we specify a period is as in this case five days or less (see CPR 2.8(4)). In fact, Mr McGarry received the couriered copy on Friday 2 March, which would have been in time, but there is binding authority that the deemed provisions in the CPR take precedence over the actual facts of service (see Godwin v Swindon Borough Council [2001] EWCA Civ 1478, [2002] 1 WLR 0997...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jsc Bta Bank (Respondent / Claimant) v Mukhtar Ablyazov
...534, where the sentence was again 12 months; Shalson v. Russo (unreported, 9 July 2001), where a 2 year sentence was imposed; Lexi Holdings plc v. Shaid Luqman [2007] EWHC 1508 (Ch), [2007] EWHC 2355 (Ch), where the sentence was 2 years (after an initial indication of 18 months) because of......
-
Timothy Colin Hamilton Ball (Liquidator of PV Solar Solutions Ltd) and Another v Paul James Hughes and Another
...to invoke the Duomatic principle to prove, if it be disputed, that the company was solvent at the material time: Lexi Holdings Plc (In Administration) v Shaid Luqman and others [2007] EWHC 2652 per Briggs J at para 193. On present facts the burden is therefore on the Respondents to satisfy ......
-
Anthony John Wright and Geoffrey Paul Rowley (Liquidators of BHS Group Ltd, SHB Realisations Ltd, Davenbush Ltd and Lowland Homes Ltd (All (in Liquidation)) v Dominic Joseph Andrew Chappell
...measure of the loss caused by the defendants' breach of duty.” 503 The company appealed and the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal: see [2009] 2 BCLC 1. For the appeal counsel accepted that the test applied by the judge was accurate subject to one qualification which Sir Andrew Morritt C ad......
-
Madoff Securities International Ltd ((in Liquidation)) v Stephen Raven and Others
...Re Barings Plc (No 5) [1999] 1 BCLC 433 at 486h-489c; Lexi Holdings Plc v Luqman No2 [2008] 2 BCLC 725 per Briggs J at [31], [32] and [2009] BCC 716 per Sir Andrew Morritt C at [37]. Similarly it is the duty of each director to form an independent judgment as to whether acceding to a shareh......
-
The Fraud Act 2006: An Update
...accounting fraud were the two most common types of fraud reported by the respondents. Lexi Holdings Plc (In Administration) v Luqman [2009] EWCA Civ 117 This was a civil case brought by administrators against Lexi's two former directors for equitable compensation or damages for failing to p......
-
Directors' Fiduciary Duties: Inactivity May Be A Breach Of Duty
...minutes. In the final analysis they may have to resign. Further reading: Lexi Holdings Plc (in administration) v Luqman and Others [2009] EWCA Civ 117 This article was written for Law-Now, CMS McKenna's free online information service. To register for Law-Now, please go to www.law-now.com/l......