CR-2025-007581 - [2025] EWHC 2208 (Ch)

In his first witness statement Mr Maunick states that HMRC engaged in “deliberate” and “improper conduct”. Two grounds appear to have been advanced to support the “improper conduct”. First, Mr Maunick says of HMRC:

“It is therefore obvious why HMRC have refused for days to provide a copy of the petition, refused to confirm if had purportedly been served and refused to confirm the date of intended advertisement or the hearing. They refused to do this deliberately so that we would be denied the opportunity to apply to court for this injunction. This is, I believe, a serious and deliberate abuse of process.”

Secondly, his evidence is:

“the petition was not properly served and HMRC knew that it had not been properly served and had not come to my attention.”

Self-supporting evidence for the second ground of alleged misconduct is given by Mr Maunick:

“I believe HMRC made an incorrect report to Companies House stating that our post was not being delivered to our proper registered office which is located at Blinkbox Business Complex, Western Road, Deal, Kent, CT14 6PJ. It was improper for HMRC to make the report I believe they made. That was always our proper address, we receive post there and have the right to use the address as our registered office.”

In his second witness statement, Mr Maunick says that the Company has a set off by reason of a claimed rebate. As evidence of the rebate he exhibits a CT600:

“The CT600 shows that we are entitled to a rebate from HMRC in a sum which exceeds the petition debt.”

In addition he claimed that the Company had acquired, by way of an assignment, causes of action against HMRC for “misappropriation of assets” and explained:

“I am in the process of preparing further evidence which provides detailed material concerning the causes of action we have.”

Mr Maunick explains that the Company obtained a copy of the Petition from the Court, and tempers the allegation made of “improper conduct” by referring to the alleged facts as an abuse of process, in his third witness statement:

“That abuse of process is largely based on the conduct of HMRC, the Respondent, in failing to serve the petition within the rules, depositing it at the Companies House default address that the Respondent knew would not come to our attention and then refusing to provide the company, its agents or its solicitors with a copy of that petition in a deliberate attempt to avoid the company being able to make an application for an injunction to restrain advertisement.”

Mr Maunick repeats the allegations in his fourth and last witness statement:

“the Respondent conducted itself as it did to avoid us actually receiving the petition before advertisement and to avoid an injunction being obtained… the Respondent seems to have a great deal of knowledge of the Companies House position and the change of address. It seems obvious that they have been involved in this as nobody else has been… the Respondent could have sent to multiple addresses. They were specifically informed we did not have the petition and given multiple ways to send it. They failed to do so.

Mrs Urben for HMRC denies the allegations in her witness statement of fact dated 6 March 2025 where she says :

“[18] The Respondent did not and has never colluded with Companies House to prevent the Applicant from receiving the Petition.

[19] The Respondent did not make an incorrect “report” to Companies House.

[54] The Applicant is mistaken, the Respondent did not make a “report” to Companies House and the Applicant has provided no evidence to support this assertion.

[58] The Respondent did not unjustifiably refuse to send a copy of the Petition. It is policy to request acceptance of the email disclaimer advising of the possible risks of email communication, this is so companies can make an educated and informed decision in relation to email communication with HMRC. The Respondent acted in accordance with its policy to safeguard the customer and through the issue of the email disclaimer, to ensure they were educated in the possible risks associated with email communication. An e-mail request for a copy of the Petition was received from ECP on 22 January 2025. A blank e-mail disclaimer form was sent to ECP on 23 January 2025.

[60] The Applicant had already received a copy of the petition, which was correctly served on them.”

To sustain the claim that HMRC made an application pursuant to Regulation 4 of the Regulations or otherwise reported that the Company’s registered address did not satisfy section 86 of the 2006 Act, one of two things will be required. First, an admission of the allegation. Alternatively the Company will need to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the court that the allegation is true. To prove the allegation is true the Company would need to cross-examine HMRC. Cross-examination is unsuitable for the Companies Court when it hears a winding up petition. The Burden Group Limited [2017] BPIR 554 and Long v Farrer & Co [2004] BPIR 1218 are authorities for the proposition that there are only limited exceptions when a Court should go behind statements of fact without cross-examination.

HMRC deny they had submitted a Regulation 4 application. The Company and Mr Maunick have provided no evidence to support the allegation made. There has been no cross-examination. I have no hesitation is dismissing the allegation.

For the same reasons, the allegation that HMRC deliberately withheld the Petition with the intent of denying the Company the opportunity to obtain an injunction is also dismissed. The allegation defies the chronology and in particular the engagement of and involvement of the Company’s agent.

To elaborate, the Company knew that HMRC were threatening to present a Petition unless the debt was paid. HMRC wrote to the Company in May 2024 informing it that solicitors would be instructed to present a petition to wind up the Company if the debt was not paid and enclosing a statement of liabilities. Later, Liberty wrote to HMRC saying that cheques had been sent to HMRC in respect of the debt. On 17 October 2024 Liberty informed HMRC that the Company would pay the debt notwithstanding a dispute, and on 5 December that the Company had paid £900,000, which it had not. HMRC wrote to Liberty on 11 December 2024 informing it, and it follows informing the Company, that the Petition was drafted on 6 December 2024, and the total debt stood at £1,104,015.14. The Company knew how the debt was made up through its appointed agent, Liberty. It knew that the Petition had been presented when HMRC wrote to Liberty on 21 January 2025 to confirm that the Petition had been issued on the same day that HMRC wrote to Liberty: 11 December 2024. Even if it is correct that Mr Maunick had not seen the Petition by early January 2025 he and the Company knew about the debt, knew a petition had been threatened, knew that the Petition had been drafted and presented, and that HMRC were about to give notice of the Petition.

These facts were sufficient to inform the Court that the Company was under serious threat making it entirely possible for the Company to obtain an interim injunction restraining advertisement even if it did not have a copy of the Petition. It appears the Company failed to provide the Judge who made the interim injunction the chronology set out in paragraph 62.