Re Infund LLP ; Grupo México SAB de CV and another v Registrar of Companies (England and Wales) and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Patten,Henderson,Asplin |
| Judgment Date | 16 October 2019 |
| Neutral Citation | [2019] EWCA Civ 1673 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 16 October 2019 |
[2019] EWCA Civ 1673
COURT OF APPEAL
Before Lord Justice Patten, Lord Justice Henderson and Lady Justice Asplin
When considering whether material that had legal consequences could be removed from the company register because the presence of such material might cause damage to the company or partnership, the "damage" concerned extended to damage that might be caused in the future because of the company or partnership's continuing existence as an active legal entity. The Court of Appeal so held when dismissing an appeal by the second to fourth defendants, Infund LLP, Héctor Juan José García Quevedo Topete and Corplaw Ltd, from the judgment of Mr Justice Henry Carr([2018] Bus LR 1863) granting an application by the claimants, Grupo México SAB de CV and Germán Larrea Mota Velasco for an order, pursuant to section 1096 of the Companies Act 2006, rectifying the Register of Companies to record that the second defendant, Infund LLP, had been dissolved on January 15, 2008 and the removal of all associated material filed after that date.
The third defendant had previously obtained the administrative restoration of Infund LLP under section 1024 of the Companies Act 2006 after it had been struck off the register as a defunct entity so as to change its status from dissolved to active. The judge found that the restoration had been dishonestly obtained.
Section 1094(3) of the 2006 act provided: "This section does not authorise the removal from the register of (a) anything whose registration has had legal consequences in relation to the company as regards (i) its formation, (ii) a change of name, (iii) its re-registration ... (viii) its dissolution ..."
Section 1096(3) provided: "The court must not make an order for the removal from the register of anything ... mentioned in section 1094(3) unless satisfied (a) that the presence of the material on the register has caused, or may cause, damage to the company, and (b) that the company's interest in removing the material outweighs any interest of other persons in the material continuing to appear on the register."
Mr John Machell, QC, and Mr Dan McCourt Fritz for the second to fourth defendants; Mr John Wardell, QC, and Ms Emily McKechnie for the claimants. The first defendant, the Registrar of Companies (England and Wales), did not appear and was not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Peter Raymond Henrikson v Charles Riley Constant
...the goods and the buyers and sellers in sufficient detail to enable them to be identified. Authorities relied upon 24 In Re Infund LLP [2020] Bus. L.R. 567 Mr Garcia obtained the administrative restoration of a limited liability partnership (“LLP”) to the register. The claimants sought, pur......