Smith, Re (Ruling - Piggott condition) [2017] EWHC 3335 (Comm)

[2017] EWHC 3335 (Comm)Case No CL-2017-000323; (formerly CJA No 73 of 2005)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
COMMERCIAL COURT
Venue Royal Courts of Justice, Rolls Building, Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NLDate 6 th December 2017
Before
Mr Justice Popplewell
Between
In the Matter of Gerald SmithClaimantIn the Matter of Gerald Smith
Sebastian Kokelaar (instructed by Richard Slade & Co LLP) for Phoenix & MinardiDominic Kendrick QC & Tim Akkouh ( Byrne & Partners LLP ) For Harbour IIMartin Pascoe QC & Rupert Hamilton (Holman Fenwick Willan LLP) For Joint LiquidatorsIan Gatt QC & Sean Upson ( Stewarts Law LLP ) For Stewarts LawKennedy Talbot QC & James Mather ( SFO ) For SFOTony Beswetherick (Stephenson Harwood LLP ) For Receivers)Dr Gerald Smith in person for in personHearing Hearing dates: 6 th– 7 th December 2017
DRAFT RULINGSIf this draft Judgment has been emailed to you it is to be treated as ‘read-only’.You should send any suggested amendments as a separate Word document.

Wednesday, 6th December 2017

[1]I proceed on the footing that a good arguable case has been established.[2]We will proceed on the basis that for the purposes of this application the SFO has established that there is a good arguable case that the shares constitute realisable property of Dr Smith. I do so on the basis that the evidence which is relied on is submitted by Mr Talbot to be sufficient to cross that threshold. No one has sought to argue to the contrary, save only Mr Kokelaar on behalf of Phoenix and Minardi and his position is that because he would like a receivership order to be made, he does not wish today to argue the contrary but only wishes to reserve his ability to argue to the contrary on some later occasion. Mr Talbot has confirmed that he will be able to do so. On that basis,

Cited in 1 later judgment