Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
England and Wales High Court (Commercial Court) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Commercial Court) Decisions >> Smith, Re (Ruling - Piggott condition) [2017] EWHC 3335 (Comm) (6 December 2017)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2017/3335.html
Cite as: [2017] EWHC 3335 (Comm)
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
Neutral Citation Number: [2017]
EWHC 3335 (Comm)
Case No: CL-2017-000323; (formerly CJA No 73 of 2005)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
COMMERCIAL COURT
Royal Courts of Justice, Rolls Building
Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL
Date: 6th December 2017
Before :
Mr Justice Popplewell
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between :
In the Matter of Gerald Smith
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sebastian Kokelaar (instructed by Richard Slade & Co LLP) for the Phoenix & Minardi
Dominic Kendrick QC & Tim Akkouh ( Byrne & Partners LLP ) For Harbour II
Martin Pascoe QC & Rupert Hamilton (Holman Fenwick Willan LLP) For Joint Liquidators
Ian Gatt QC & Sean Upson ( Stewarts Law LLP ) For Stewarts Law
Kennedy Talbot QC & James Mather ( SFO ) For SFO
Tony Beswetherick (Stephenson Harwood LLP ) For Receivers)
Dr Gerald Smith in person
Hearing dates: 6th – 7th December 2017
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
DRAFT RULINGS
If this draft Judgment has been emailed to you it is to be
treated as ‘read-only’.
You should send any suggested amendments as a separate Word document.
Mr Justice Popplewell
- I proceed on the footing that a good arguable case has been established.
- We will proceed on the basis that for the purposes of this application the SFO has established that there is a good arguable case that the shares constitute realisable property of Dr Smith. I do so on the basis that the evidence which is relied on is submitted by Mr Talbot to be sufficient to cross that threshold. No one has sought to argue to the contrary, save only Mr Kokelaar on behalf of Phoenix and Minardi and his position is that because he would like a receivership order to be made, he does not wish today to argue the contrary but only wishes to reserve his ability to argue to the contrary on some later occasion. Mr Talbot has confirmed that he will be able to do so. On that basis,