Geoffrey Christopher Anthony Morphitis v (1) Leonardo Bernasconi (2) Pasqualino Monti (3) Nicholas Bennett & Co (A Firm)

[2002] EWCA Civ 289
Aldous LJ, Chadwick LJ, Munby J
Court of Appeal
March 2003

 

A liquidator's fraudulent trading claim against the defendant directors under s.213 Insolvency Act 1986 failed because the business had not been carried on with a general intent to defraud.

The company, TMC Transport (UK) Ltd ran a haulage business and was the tenant of warehouse and depot premises under four leases.Its business became unprofitable and the directors identified the principal problem as the onerous rental obligations under the leases. They took advice as to whether and how they could free the company from the liabilities under the leases. On advice they implemented a scheme under which the company ceased trading at the end of 1992 and the business was thereafter carried on by a new company from new premises using the initials TMC. the company landlord then presented a winding-up petition and the company was compulsorily wound up. The liquidator took proceedings against two of the company directors under s.213 of the Insolvency Act alleging that they and the company's solicitors had been knowingly party to the carrying on of the business of the company with intent to defraud creditors, namely the landlord.

It was held that s.213 was engaged where the business of the company had been carried on with intent to defraud but not in every case was this where an individual creditor was defrauded.. It was impossible to reach the conclusion, on the facts found by the judge in the present case, that the business of the company was carried on with intent to defraud creditors and in particular the landlord. The business was carried on throughout 1993 with the intent to protect the directors from the penalties to which they would otherwise be exposed under s.216 of the Act as directors of the new company for re-using the TMC name. The amount of contribution ordered under s.213 should reflect the loss that had been caused to a company's creditors by the carrying on of the business in the manner that gave rise to the exercise of the power to order the contribution. There was no power to include a punitive element in the amount of any contribution ordered.