Jeremy Robert Webb & Anor v Eversholt Rail Limited & Anor (Re Eversholt Rail (365) Limited)
[2024] EWHC 2217 (Ch)
Paul Steven Cooper & Ors v Vladimir Dashi (aka Rugova)
9 August 2024
[2024] EWHC 2102 (Ch)
High Court
Bankruptcy trustees wanted documents and to question someone about payments made after someone went bankrupt. A judge said most of the documents weren't needed because the other side said they didn't have them, but some documents *were* needed because of concerns about suspicious payments.
Key Facts
- •Joint trustees in bankruptcy (Applicants) sought disclosure of documents and cross-examination of Vladimir Dashi (Respondent) under section 366 of the Insolvency Act 1986.
- •The bankrupt, Edward Wojakovski, owed £12,994,642.43 after judgment.
- •Respondents provided transcribing/translation services to the bankrupt.
- •Applicants questioned payments made by Respondents, including payments to law firms acting for the bankrupt and club memberships.
- •Respondents asserted they had disclosed all relevant documents and provided explanations for payments.
- •Applicants alleged lack of cooperation and insufficient information from Respondents.
Legal Principles
Section 366 IA 86 grants an extraordinary power for office holders to obtain information, requiring a balancing exercise between the office holder's reasonable requirement and the respondent's inconvenience/burden.
Insolvency Act 1986, section 366
The applicant must satisfy the court that there is a proper case for an order, where the administrator reasonably requires documents to carry out functions and production doesn't impose an unreasonable burden.
British & Commonwealth Holdings Plc (Joint Administrators) v Spicer & Oppenheim [1993] AC 426 at 439-440
Office holders must establish a reasonable requirement for information, with the court balancing the information's importance against potential oppressiveness to the respondent.
Sasea Finance Ltd (in liquidation) v KPMG [1998] BCC 216 at 220F
Outcomes
Application for disclosure of documents (a, b, c, d, e, i, j) refused.
Respondents provided sworn statements asserting they had no further documents; Applicants provided no evidence to contradict this.
Application for disclosure of documents (f) granted.
Respondents’ reply did not definitively state they had no further emails relevant to communications with law firms; Applicants raised legitimate concerns regarding payments made post-bankruptcy.
Application for disclosure of documents (g, partially) granted.
Respondents failed to provide documentation regarding the terms of advances to law firms; Applicants raised legitimate concerns about the timing of the payments in relation to the freezing order.
Application for disclosure of documents (g, partially) refused.
Sufficient information already provided regarding payments to R3 and club membership.
Application for disclosure of documents (h) refused.
No further transactions identified beyond those already disclosed.
Application for disclosure of documents (additional headings i and ii) refused.
Not included in the application notice; Respondents stated they lacked the documents.
Application for cross-examination of Mr Dashi refused.
Respondents provided explanations for the payments and transactions; Applicants' dissatisfaction with these explanations was insufficient to justify an order for cross-examination.