Invenia Technical Computing Corporation & Anor v Matthew Hudson
[2024] EWHC 1302 (Ch)
Seaton Management Limited v Stephen Henry Evans-Jones
26 July 2024
[2024] EWHC 1883 (Ch)
High Court
A solicitor tried to force a company to pay him money they disputed. He missed court deadlines and asked the judge to look at someone else's phone for evidence. The judge said no, and stopped the solicitor from trying to shut the company down.
Key Facts
- •Seaton Management Ltd (Applicant) is a mortgage broking and management consultancy firm.
- •Stephen Henry Evans-Jones (Respondent), a solicitor, claimed a 50% share of Seaton's fee from a bridging loan deal.
- •The Respondent issued a statutory demand after Seaton disputed the claim.
- •Seaton sought an injunction to restrain the Respondent from presenting a winding-up petition.
- •The Respondent failed to file evidence on time, seeking relief from sanctions and disclosure.
- •The Respondent sought disclosure of a non-party's (Ms Williams') mobile phone for WhatsApp messages.
Legal Principles
Relief from sanctions
CPR 3.9 and Denton v TH White Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 90
Principles for restraining presentation of winding-up petition
Coilcolour v Camtrex [2015] EWHC 3202, Mann v Goldstein [1968] 1 WLR 1091, Bryanston Finance Ltd v De Vries (No. 2) [1976] Ch 63, Charles Forte Investments Ltd v Amanda [1964] Ch 240, Re Pan Interiors [2005] EWHC 3241 (Ch), Re a Company (No 0012209 of 1991) [1992] BCLC 865, Re a Company (No 6685 of 1996) [1997] BCC 830
Disclosure in winding-up proceedings
Superdrug Store Plc v Protein World Ltd (unreported, 13 July 2023)
Outcomes
Relief from sanction refused.
Serious and significant breach of court order; no good reason for delay; Respondent's case likely to fail.
Disclosure application dismissed.
No exceptional circumstances; Respondent failed to exhaust own sources; disclosure not necessary for injunction application; potential abuse of process to avoid Part 7 court fees.
Final injunction granted.
Disputed oral agreement; issues of fact requiring cross-examination unsuitable for winding-up petition; abuse of process to use statutory demand to pressure payment of disputed debt.