McFaddens Solicitors v Guru Paran Chandrasekaran
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Master Cook |
| Judgment Date | 05 March 2014 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [2014] EWHC J0305-3 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | Case No: HQ05X00399 |
| Date | 05 March 2014 |
[2014] EWHC J0305-3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
The Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London, WC2A 2LL
Master Cook
Case No: HQ05X00399
Mr H Jackson (instructed by McFaddens LLP) appeared on behalf of the Claimant
Mr D Cavender QC (instructed by Pitmans LLP) appeared on behalf of the Defendant
Approved Judgment
There are three applications made by the defendant before the court. The first application is for discharge of two final charging orders over his personal holding of shares in the company Scentrics Ltd and any dividends paid by the company. Those charging orders were made by the court on 16 November 2013. It is right to say that since that application was issued a further application has been issued in respect of a further charging order made by Rose J in respect of a costs order made against the defendant by her. Effectively, these two applications stand or fall together.
The third application is an application pursuant to RSC order 47(i) for a stay of execution by writ of fi fa. The stay is sought on the basis that such execution is either inexpedient or is disproportionate and unnecessary, in view of the fact that the defendant has no assets over which enforcement could properly or successfully or proportionately take place.
These are just the latest in a long series of applications and hearings that have taken place between these parties, arising out of a judgment debt and accumulated interest now valued at in excess of £1 million. The common theme that has run through all the hearings previously before me and other judges in both this division and the Chancery Division is that the judgment debt can eventually be repaid because the claimant has a shareholding in a company to which he has assigned valuable intellectual property rights. The shares in this company are in the process of being sold to a potential bidder for a very large sum indeed. The sum realised by the sale will be more than sufficient to clear or to satisfy the judgment debt. Therefore, it is said on behalf of Mr Chandersakaran, the focus for the purposes of enforcement should be upon those shares and the eventual sale of them.
The hearing of these applications commenced before me last month. At that time I was presented with five ring binders of material covering the proceedings and applications that had been made prior to the date of the latest round of applications. The hearing was adjourned part heard, the parties having completed the majority of their submissions. Yesterday afternoon I was presented with yet another bundle, bundle 6, containing further evidence filed on behalf of the defendant in an effort to meet many of the criticisms that had been made by counsel for the claimant in the course of the previous hearing. Indeed, rather than mopping up submissions this morning the parties submissions have been expanded to cover the new material that has been placed before me.
In essence, Mr Cavender QC now submits that the court is in a much better position to look at this situation in the round. He submits, in short, that there is now credible information before the court as to the valuation of the shares, that the draft escrow deed which has now been provided, in its latest version, provides real legitimate and valuable security. He points to the fact that the valuation that can derived from the documents means that any concern that the claimant may have about priorities is merely illusory.
In the circumstances Mr Cavender QC submits that the claimant's concerns are misplaced and that the court can be satisfied the defendant has made an offer of adequate alternative security, which, in the circumstances, will enable the court to exercise its discretion under CPR 73.9 to discharge the final charging order made over the defendant's shares.
In his skeleton argument for the hearing today Mr Jackson, on behalf of the claimant, makes the following points on the basis of the evidence as it now appears. Firstly, there remain registered against the defendant's name in the Land Charges Registry notice of two bankruptcy petitions. This is a fact that only seems to have emerged within the last day. I observed in the course of submissions that I have had no formal evidence from the defendant on the point and that his counsel was reduced to obtaining instructions, which, having heard what the petitions were about, seem to suffer from a degree of uncertainly.
Secondly, Mr Jackson points out that from the very start of the attempts to enforce judgment the defendant has continued to support a lifestyle which has been funded by selling shares to investors out of a Jersey trust. The trust making loans to the defendant which are on any view substantial sums approaching or just exceeding £1 million.
Thirdly, since the completion of the oral examination, the defendant has sold a further 861 shares to investors using the vehicle of the Jersey trust. On the basis of the witness statement of Mr Eppel and the evidence put in on behalf of the defendant, the share sales have raised more than...
To continue reading
Request your trial