Ziyavudin Magomedov & Ors v TPG Group Holdings (SBS), LP & Ors
[2023] EWHC 2655 (Comm)
GLAS SAS (London Branch) v European Topsoho SARL & Ors
26 January 2024
[2024] EWHC 83 (Comm)
High Court
A company (GLAS) sued three others (ETS, Dynamic, Ms. Qiu) for not paying back money and moving assets. Two of them (Dynamic and Ms. Qiu) tried to delay the case, but the judge said no. The judge didn't immediately rule against them but said they had to pay a large amount of money to be allowed to continue their defense because their defense looked very weak.
Key Facts
- •GLAS SAS (London Branch) claimed against European Topsoho SARL (ETS), Dynamic Treasure Group Limited (Dynamic), and Chenran Qiu for debt, unlawful means conspiracy, and contravention of s. 423 Insolvency Act 1986.
- •ETS issued €250,000,000 bonds secured by shares in SMCP, failing to pay upon maturity.
- •ETS transferred its unpledged SMCP shares to Dynamic, allegedly undervalued.
- •Ms Qiu was involved in the management of both ETS and Dynamic.
- •Subsequent proceedings unfolded in Luxembourg, Singapore, and the PRC.
- •The authenticity of various agreements and notices related to the share transfer was disputed.
Legal Principles
Summary Judgment
White Book at 24.2.3
Relief from Sanctions
CPR 24.6(c), Texan Management Limited v Pacific Electric Wire & Cable Company Limited [2009] UKPC 46, Apollo Ventures Co. Limited v Surinder Singh Manchanda [2021] EWHC 3210 (Comm)
Jurisdictional Challenges
Spiliada Maritime Corp v Cansulex Ltd [1987] AC 460
Conditional Orders on Summary Judgment
CPR 24.6(c), CPR 3.1(3), Abbot Investments (North Africa) Ltd v Nestoil Ltd [2017] EWHC 119 (Comm), Gama Aviation (UK) Ltd v Taleveras Petroleum Trading DMCC [2019] EWCA Civ 119, Olatawura v Abiloye [2002] EWCA Civ 998, Deutsche Bank AG v Unitech Global Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 119
Unlawful Means Conspiracy
Relevant sections of the law not explicitly stated but discussed
Insolvency Act 1986, s. 423
Insolvency Act 1986
Outcomes
Dynamic's application for an extension of time to acknowledge service/challenge jurisdiction refused.
Significant delay, lack of justification, and caused significant disruption.
Ms Qiu's application for an extension of time to challenge jurisdiction refused.
No sufficient change in circumstances after the time limit for acknowledgment of service.
Ms Qiu's application for an extension of time to file and serve her Defence granted, subject to conditions.
Justice requires a full hearing to test evidence; however, conditions imposed due to the weak nature of the defense and lack of timely participation.
Summary judgment against ETS for Deferred Fee granted.
Claim not resisted by ETS.
Summary judgment against Dynamic and Ms Qiu refused.
Defendants have a real prospect of successfully defending the claims, although prospects are weak and conditions are imposed.