CR-2024-005081 - [2025] EWHC 2374 (Ch)

Fecha: 19-Sep-2025

Other grounds

Other grounds

54.

Given my finding in relation to the first ground, it is not strictly necessary for me to decide the second ground advanced by the Company, namely that the Court in its discretion should not make a winding up order because the Petition debt has come about as a direct result of the Petitioner’s allegedly “unlawful” conduct in seizing CTS’ stock. However, given that the parties argued the matter before me, I will briefly address this point.

55.

In my judgment, even if I am wrong on the first ground, there is plainly an argument that the self-help remedy which the Petitioner exercised by seizing assets at Trueblue’s premises in Cork was not permissible under the Guarantee. As to this:

The evidence before the Court is that the premises were not those of CTS and were those of a third party to their contractual arrangements;

ii)

I have found that there is a genuine and substantial dispute as to whether the sums claimed in the petition were due and payable at the time of the seizure. It is then arguable whether any right to seize assets under the Petitioner’s security had arisen;

iii)

There is also evidence before me that some of the stock taken by the Petitioner was not the property of CTS. That is a matter which, on the evidence before me, is not capable of determination in this court.

56.

I note that any potential cross-claim would be made by CTS and/or Trueblue who are not parties to this Petition. However, in the circumstances of this Petition, it would be inappropriate to make a winding up order when the Petitioner’s actions in seizing property at the Cork site is under question and is claimed to give rise to the petition debt. I should make clear that I make no determination on the substance of this point, which will need to be decided by separate Part 7 proceedings.