This websites use cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. For more details about cookies and how to manage them, see our cookie policy.

Cases Mark Cunningham

In the Matter of Sed Essex Ltd (2013)

Judgment Date: 14 Jun 2013

It was appropriate to maintain the appointment of provisional liquidators pending the hearing of a winding-up petition. The petition, founded on alleged indebtedness arising from assessments for VAT denying a company's claims to recover input tax on the basis that they were connected with the fraudulent evasion of VAT, was likely to succeed and it would not be safe or sensible to return the company to the control of its own management in the interim.

View case

ECO3 Capital Ltd & Ors v Ludsin Overseas Ltd (2013)

Judgment Date: 23 Apr 2013

A judge had been entitled to find that those who had been involved in a scheme to purchase a plot of land were liable in deceit to a company which they had induced to invest in the scheme by concealing its true structure and the price being paid for the land.

View case

Prima Equity Ltd v West Bromwich Commercial Ltd (2013)

Judgment Date: 26 Mar 2013

A financier had not been entitled to serve a formal demand as it had, at the time of the demand, held excess funds that had been wrongly deducted as capital repayments from a borrower's bank account, which meant that no sums were in fact due at the relevant time.

View case

In the Matter of UKLI Ltd; Secretary of State v Baljinder Chohan (2013)

Judgment Date: 26 Mar 2013

Where an individual was properly characterised as a de facto and shadow director of a company which he had sanctioned and encouraged to operate an unlawful collective investment scheme, and where he had procured the company to make improper loans and dividends, it was appropriate to disqualify him from acting as a director under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 s.6 for a 12-year period.

View case

Secretary of State for Business, Innovation & Skills v Nadhan Singh Potiwal (2012)

Judgment Date: 21 Dec 2012

The evidence of a company director in disqualification proceedings, asserting his lack of knowledge of his company's involvement in VAT evasion, was struck out as an abuse of process. The VAT tribunal had previously found that the director had knowledge of the VAT evasion, and although there was an absence of privity between government departments in relation to that issue, it would be manifestly unfair and bring the administration of justice into disrepute if the matter was relitigated.

View case

Ludsin Overseas Ltd v ECO3 Capital Ltd & Ors (2012)

Judgment Date: 19 Jul 2012

A company which had lost £2 million by investing in a scheme involving the purchase of a plot of land succeeded in its claim for fraudulent misrepresentation against several defendants who had been involved in the promotion or operation of the scheme.

View case

Fonecomp Ltd v Revenue & Customs Commissioners (2012)

Judgment Date: 03 Feb 2012

A decision to deny a company's input tax claim in respect of its purchase of mobile phones in relation to two deals was correct where the deals were shown to be connected to VAT fraud and where that company had the means to know that the only reasonable explanation for the deals was that they were part of a scheme to defraud the Revenue.

View case

In the Matter of Instant Access Properties Ltd v Maria Gifford (2011)

Judgment Date: 21 Nov 2011

It was appropriate to grant the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills permission to apply for disqualification orders against four company directors, pursuant to the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 s.7(2), after the two-year period from the company's insolvency had expired. The case alleged against the directors that they had created a sham arrangement to avoid paying tax was reasonably strong, the delay in bringing proceedings was reasonably well explained and there was no specific prejudice to the directors such that the grant of permission was not appropriate.

View case

Moblix Ltd (In Administration) v Revenue & Customs Commissioners (2010)

Judgment Date: 12 May 2010

In order for a taxable person to be deprived of the right to deduct input tax it had to be shown that he knew or should have known that his transaction was connected with fraudulent evasion of VAT, and it was not sufficient to show that he knew or should have known that it was more likely than not that his transaction was so connected. However, a trader could be regarded as a participant and lose his right to deduct where he should have known that the only reasonable explanation for the circumstances in which a transaction took place was that it was connected with VAT fraud.

View case

Megtian Ltd (In Administration) v Revenue & Customs Commissioners (2010)

Judgment Date: 15 Jan 2010

The VAT and duties tribunal had not erred in law in upholding a decision to disallow input tax claims on the ground that the transactions to which the claims related were connected with the fraudulent evasion of VAT, of which the taxpayer was, or ought to have been, aware.

View case

Calltel Telecom Ltd v Revenue & Customs Commissioners (2009)

Judgment Date: 21 May 2009

Repayment of input tax was rightly refused on the ground that the taxpayers knew that their dealings in mobile phones were connected with a VAT fraud elsewhere in the chain of supply.

View case

Mobilx Ltd (In Administration) v Revenue & Customs Commissioners (2009)

Judgment Date: 03 Feb 2009

Where every transaction engaged in by a company could be traced back to a supplier who had defrauded the Revenue by avoiding the payment of VAT on imported goods and where that company had been made aware of the fact, a VAT and Duties tribunal had been correct to refuse to allow the company to reclaim tax that the Revenue had never received. A reasonable and proportionate response by the company to being told that it was involved with fraudulent suppliers would be to either radically alter its method of trading or to stop trading.

View case

Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform v Amway (UK) Ltd (2009)

Judgment Date: 29 Jan 2009

The judge had carried out the necessary balancing exercise when refusing a petition under the Insolvency Act 1986 s.124A to wind up a company on public interest grounds. Having regard to a new business model formulated by the company and undertakings offered as to its conduct, the judge's decision had been justified.

View case

Secretary of State for Business Enterprise & Regulatory Reform v Sullman & Poole (2008)

Judgment Date: 19 Dec 2008

A company director of a claims management service involved in selling various insurance products to claimants was disqualified under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 s.8 following his misconduct and misrepresentation in selling the products and in the flotation of the company on the stock market.

View case

Megtian Ltd v Revenue & Customs Commissioners (VADT 20894) (2008)

Judgment Date: 11 Dec 2008

A trader could lose the right to claim input tax wherever fraud occurred in a chain of transactions as long as the transaction entered into by the trader was connected with that fraud and he knew or should have known it was connected with it.

View case

Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform v Amway (UK) Ltd (2008)

Judgment Date: 14 May 2008

Where a company which the secretary of state sought to wind up in the public interest had revised its business model and gave undertakings as to its future conduct a winding-up order was disproportionate.

View case

Calltell Telecom Ltd & Opto Telelinks (Europe) Ltd v Revenue & Customs Commissioners (2007)

Judgment Date: 20 Jul 2007

Where a trader had actual knowledge that he was participating in a transaction which formed part of a chain whose purpose was the fraudulent evasion of tax, or had failed to take all reasonable steps to guard against it, then even when he had no privity of contract with the perpetrator he would forfeit his right to deduct input tax.

View case

RE I (2007)

Judgment Date: 04 Jul 2007

Funds placed with a hawala company for transfer to a foreign account had not been held on trust as the hawala system was totally inconsistent with the existence of a trust and it was inherent in the system that customers' funds were consolidated and constituted the general funds of the company.

View case

Director of the Assets Recovery Agency v Robert Alan Kean (2007)

Judgment Date: 31 Jan 2007

A property freezing order obtained by the Assets Recovery Agency was not discharged despite it having been obtained by non-disclosure and innocent misrepresentation at a without notice hearing, because the agency's misjudgement had not been serious and a broad, merits-based evaluation of all the circumstances found no abuse of process.

View case

1 2 3 4

Results 21 - 40 of 78