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.