BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES
INSOLVENCY AND COMPANIES LIST (ChD)
Fetter Lane London EC4A 1NL |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR BUSINESS AND TRADE |
Claimant |
|
- and – |
||
ALEXANDER DAVID GREENSILL |
Defendant |
____________________
2nd Floor, Quality House, 6-9 Quality Court, Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1HP.
Telephone No: 020 7067 2900. DX 410 LDE
Email: info@martenwalshcherer.com
Web: www.martenwalshcherer.com
HILARY STONEFROST (instructed by Ellerman Ltd) for the Defendant
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
MR JUSTICE TROWER:
i) Issue One. In the period November and December 2020 Mr Greensill caused GCUK, GL and GCPty to enter into a series of transactions to the detriment of Virtuoso as noteholder of the Katerra notes programme and caused GCUK to apply sums received by it otherwise than for the redemption of the Katerra notes.
ii) Issue Three. From August 2000 Mr Greensill made a series of misrepresentations and non-disclosures to the boards of GCUK and GCPty in respect of the status of the insurance, including service of notice of non-renewal, such that the boards were unaware of these issues.
i) the Catfoss allegations which are common to both the disqualification proceedings and the Australian proceedings;
ii) the Catfoss allegations which are made in the disqualification proceedings but not in the Australian proceedings; and
iii) the allegations of dishonesty against Mr Greensill, both in relation to Catfoss and to the other two counterparties I have already mentioned – Bluestone Resources and Liberty France Aluminium - which are made in the Australian proceedings but not in the disqualification proceedings.
"It is unhesitatingly admitted that there is some 'common ground' between part of one of the limbs of the Defences of the Insurers in the Australian Proceedings, and one of the allegations – Issue 2 – in these disqualification proceedings".
i) the outcome of the Australian proceedings may promote a consensual resolution of the issue or reduce the time needed to try it in England;
ii) the outcome of the Australian proceedings may reduce the time needed to try it in England;
iii) it is likely that the possibility of conflicting decisions in Australia and England would thereby be reduced; and
iv) it is in the interests of the creditors of GCUK for such an order to be granted.
"The English courts have wide case management powers, and they include the power to impose a temporary stay on proceedings where to do so would serve the Overriding Objective; see CPR rr 1.2(a) and 3.1(2)(f). For example, a temporary stay is frequently imposed and even more frequently ordered by consent in order to give the parties breathing space to attempt to settle the proceedings or narrow the issues by mediation or some other form of alternative dispute resolution. A temporary stay may be ordered where there are parallel proceedings in another jurisdiction, raising similar or related issues between the same or related parties, where the earlier resolution of those issues in the foreign proceedings would better serve the interests of justice than by allowing the English proceedings to continue without a temporary stay: see Reichhold Norway ASA v Goldman Sachs International [2000] 1 WLR 173. But this would be justified only in rare or compelling circumstances: see per Lord Bingham MR at pp 185-186, and Klockner Holdings GmbH v Klockner Beteiligungs GmbH [2005] EWHC 1453".
"The Secretary of State has a public duty to apply for the disqualification of unfit directors. He cannot be held up indefinitely by other proceedings over which he has no control".