Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy v Deea Construct Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Briggs |
| Judgment Date | 25 July 2023 |
| Neutral Citation | [2023] EWHC 2084 (Ch) |
| Court | Chancery Division |
| Docket Number | Case No: CR-2023-000396 |
[2023] EWHC 2084 (Ch)
CHIEF INSOLVENCY AND COMPANIES COURT JUDGE Briggs
Case No: CR-2023-000396
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND
And Wales
INSOLVENCY AND COMPANIES LIST (ChD)
Rolls Building
7 Rolls Buildings
Fetter Lane
London
EC4A 1NL
Ms Evie Barden appeared on behalf of the Claimant
THE DEFENDANT was not present and not represented.
CHIEF ICC JUDGE This is a claim made by the Secretary of State for Business, Energy, and Industrial Strategy. The claim for disqualification of Mr Ghimpu is supported by an affidavit sworn by Nina Cassar, the Deputy Head of Insolvent Investigations within the Investigations Directorate of The Insolvency Service, an Executive Agency of the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. Her affidavit is dated 12 January 2023, and concern a company known as Deea Construct Ltd.
Ms Cassar explains that there are four primary sources for the information she provides. First, the public file maintained by the Registrar of Companies number 11918138; secondly, information provided by the liquidator of Deea Construct; thirdly, and more widely, information gleaned from replies to enquiries carried out by the Insolvency Service; and lastly, information from an examination of the available accounting and other records of Deea Construct.
Having regard to the information from the primary sources Ms Cassar claims that Mr Ghimpu is not fit to be a director or manager of a company.
The allegations of unfitness are as follows [9]:
“Marian Ghimpu (“Mr. Ghimpu”) provided false or inaccurate information to Deea Construct Ltd's (“DCL”) bankers about DCL's turnover when applying for the Government “Bounce Back” loan (“BBL”) scheme, with the result DCL obtained a BBL it was not fully entitled to. He further failed to use the loan monies obtained under the scheme for the economic benefit of DCL as required by the scheme and used these for the benefit of himself:
9.1 The Bounce Back Loan criteria allowed a company to borrow between £2,000 and a maximum of £50,000 based on 25% of the company's turnover. The funds could only be used to provide economic benefit to the company and not for personal purposes.
9.2 On 22 October 2020, Mr. Ghimpu applied for and obtained a £50,000 BBL from DCL's banker. He informed the bankers that DCL's turnover in 2019 was £200,000. DCL's available records show that it received £4,552 during its trading period and there was no banking activity between 05 September 2019 and 26 October 2020.
9.3 The £50,000 was received by DCL on 27 October 2020. DCL's banking transactions between 31 October 2020 and 11 February 2021 show a total of £8,600 was withdrawn in cash and £41,385 was paid to Mr. Ghimpu respectively. There is no evidence available or provided by Mr Ghimpu to show that the BBL was used for the commercial benefit of DCL.
9.4 On 16 February 2021, Mr. Ghimpu contacted the Insolvency Practitioner to discuss the financial situation of DCL. The resolution to place DCL into creditors' voluntary liquidation was passed on 6 April 2021.
9.5 Mr. Ghimpu's signed Statement of Affairs shows that as at 24 March 2021, DCL had an estimated deficiency to creditors of £92,581, including the sum of £50,000 owing to the bankers in respect of the BBL”
The allegations are serious. If I may summarise, Mr Ghumpu applied for and obtained a £50,000 bounce back loan from Santander, on a representation that Deea Construct had a sufficient turnover to qualify for the loan. The records of Deea Construct show that during the trading period from September 2019 to October 2020, the company revenue was £4,552. The company therefore received the £50,000 on 27 October, by way of a false representation. When the loan came to be repaid, Mr Ghimpu put Deea Construct into liquidation.
Mr Gimpu does not attend today. The Insolvency Service sent a section 16 letter to the Defendant on 23 June 2022. There was no response.
A warning letter was sent on 4 August 2022, in which the Insolvency Service asked the Defendant to make contact. Proceedings were threatened. There was no response to that email or letter.
The Insolvency Service called the Defendant on 25 August 2022. The Defendant answered the call and then put down the receiver.
A “last chance” letter was sent by e-mail on 6 January 2023. There was no response to that email.
The Claim was issued on 24 January 2023 and served by post and e-mail.
There was no response and on 5 April 2023, directions were given by ICC Judge Barber for an uncontested disposal or directions if the Defendant attended, as is the usual practice of the court. I have seen...
To continue reading
Request your trial