- Cited — Alexander Gorbachev v Andrey Grigoryevich Guriev 2022-09-30
“…In contrast, the decision of this court in In re Seagull Manufacturing Co Ltd [1993] Ch 345 was that section 133 of the Insolvency Act 1986, authorising the public examination of an officer of an insolvent company, a liquidator, administrator, receive…”
- Cited — Varma v Atkinson & Anor 2020-11-27
“… He was prepared to accept that the term ‘forthwith’ means simply ‘as soon as is reasonably practical’: see In re Seagull Manufacturing Co Ltd (In Liquidation) [1993] Ch 345 p.359G. However, he said that Mr Varma was not asked during the course of his crossexamination whether there had been any reason for the time taken and so had …”
- Cited — Jimenez, R. (On the Application of) v The First Tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) 2019-01-31
“…elating to s.25(1) of the Bankruptcy Act 1914 (Re Tucker [1990] Ch 148), the other concerning s.133 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (Re Seagull Manufacturing Co Ltd [1993] Ch 345) where the statutory provisions enabled the court to order a person to attend for examination in relation to the affairs of the insolvent debtor. Section 25(1)…”
- Cited — Jimenez, R. (On the Application of) v The First Tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) 2019-01-31
“…The present case stands between In re Tucker [1990] Ch 148 and In re Seagull [1993] Ch 345. The category of persons embraced by CPR Pt 71 is confined to "an officer" of the company or other corporation—on the face of it probably only a current office…”
- Cited — Jimenez, R. (On the Application of) v The First Tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) 2019-01-31
“…le for the company's state of affairs should be liable to be subjected to a process of investigation and that investigation should be in public" (In re Seagull [1993] Ch 345, 354) is absent. The universality of a winding up order, in the sense that it relates at least in theory to all assets wherever situate, is also absent. Privat…”
- Cited — Jimenez, R. (On the Application of) v The First Tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) 2019-01-31
“…ation or flight to a different country in order to avoid giving information about their company's affairs. For the same reason, the deployment in In re Seagull [1993] Ch 345 of the possibility of "deliberate evasion" by an officer removing himself from the jurisdiction seems to me a factor of greater forensic than real weight, alth…”