The position of the Second Respondent
The position of the Second Respondent.
I can deal with this relatively briefly. In correspondence, the Respondents have now accepted that Ms Dubylovska had no executive role in the Company. It has been alleged she was a non-executive director and that therefore she was entitled to some remuneration when making strategic decisions. This is not accepted by the Liquidators because they say there is no material, formal or informal, to suggest that she made or was involved in any strategic decisions on behalf of the Company. At the very least, they say there is nothing to justify the payments to her detailed in Category B. Throughout it should be remembered this was just a holding company.
- Heading
- INTRODUCTION
- BACKGROUND
- THE LIQUIDATORS CASE IN SUMMARY
- Unlawful distributions
- Directors Duties
- The Interim relief sought
- THE ISSUES IN MORE DETAIL
- Injections of funds into the Company
- Payments out – The Alleged Diversions
- The position of the Second Respondent
- The position of the First Respondent
- FULL AND FRANK DISCLOSURE
- THE INTERIM RELIEF SOUGHT
- RISK OF DISSIPATION
- DELAY / THE ‘STABLE DOOR’ POINT
- ASSETS
- JUST AND CONVENIENT
- DISCLOSURE ORDER
- CROSS-UNDERTAKING IN DAMAGES
- Conclusions
![CR-2024-000675 - [2025] EWHC 2069 (Ch)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_O3rEzCI.png)