Case No. FD05D04818

18.On 18 November 2021 the Former Receivers issued their debarring application seeking an order that Ms Behbehani should be prevented from bringing any further claims against them in their professional capacity as Receivers.The hearing on 25 November 202119.Thus, for the purposes of the hearing on 25 November 2021, there were three substantive applications before the court:-(i)Ms Behbehani’s renewed application (5 July 2021) for the transfer to her of the shares in Setubal for nil consideration and free from any charge or lien exercised by the Former Receivers’ as security for their costs;(ii)her application (9 July 2021) for an extension of time for filing her detailed Particulars of Claim as a defence to the Former Respondents’ debarring application and by way of variation to my original ‘unless’ order made on 20 May 2021; and(iii)the Former Respondents’ application (18 November 2021) for a debarring order.20.On the eve of that hearing, Ms Behbehani’s solicitors made an offer to provide security for the share transfer. Whilst Mr Chichester-Clark told me that this development was welcome, albeit very late in the day, there remained an issue about the adequacy of the security which was being offered. That was to take the form of a formal charge over a particular Spanish property which had been identified by Ms Behbehani. There was then no formal evidence before the court of the value of that property and it was not clear whether she was the registered owner of the property, it being her case that registration of ownership should have been completed by December 2021. Further, it appeared that this would be a second charge ranking behind a first charge in favour of a Spanish bank. As Mr Chichester-Clark made clear in his oral submissions on that occasion, the Former Receivers had always accepted that they would ‘drop out’ of the picture once proper security was provided in respect of the outstanding costs of their Receivership.21.Ms Venkata appeared on behalf of Ms Behbehani at that hearing. She invited the court to make a conditional order on the basis that, whilst discussions continued, the undertaking given by Mr Edwards (the current Receiver) in relation to the Setubal shares would remain and would not be discharged unless or until an appropriate, and agreed, charge over the Spanish property had been put in place. 22.The evidence before the court at that stage from Ms Behbehani was that Mr Edwards had already transferred to her properties worth £4.65 million.23.In order to provide the parties with an opportunity to explore the security proposal then being advanced by Ms Behbehani, and because time in the hearing had run out on 25 November, I agreed to allow them a short adjournment to carry forward their discussions. I indicated that I would rule on any matters which remained in issue between them in terms of the drafting and any extant issues which remain unresolved, including the debarring application which I indicated I was minded to make.24.It is important at this juncture to note that the position adopted in these proceedings by the Former Receivers is not simply one of seeking security for an unpaid debt. Their role as court-appointed Receivers brought with it certain legal duties and obligations not only in relation to Ms Behbehani but to other third parties as well. The two Irish companies have rights in relation to the Setubal shares. In principle, it is those corporate entities which are entitled to any proceeds of sale following satisfaction of whatever debt is found to be due to the Former Receivers. As matters stand, the Former Receivers have a lien over those shares to protect their position. Ms Behbehani is now the beneficial owner of the Irish companies and it is she who will be entitled to those surplus proceeds once the debt is paid. But that entitlement will be quantified once the debts and expenses of the consequent liquidations and any claims of their respective creditors have been ascertained.25.There is even now no evidence before this court as to what, if any, steps have been taken to advance the Receivership since the New Receiver’s appointment on 20 May 2021. The court now has Ms Behbehani’s evidence in her sworn statement of 11 December 2020 that she has acquired property worth £10 million which formerly belonged to Mr Behbehani.26.Whilst a draft order appears to have been in circulation over the course of the next few weeks following the conclusion of the hearing on 25 November 2021, little substantive progress was made. On behalf of the Former Receivers, Mr Chichester-Clark submits that this process was significantly hindered by the fact that there was a wholesale change of personnel at HA Law with four separate fee-earners leaving the employ of that firm during 2021. I accept that the lack of continuity in Ms Behbehani’s representation has not helped the smooth transition of this litigation. Not only have there been frequent changes in terms of the individual solicitor(s) dealing with the matter internally at various stages of the litigation; there have also been frequent changes of counsel instructed at the previous hearings. None of this has helped matters. There have been instances when it has been plain to me that counsel instructed on Ms Behbehani’s behalf has not had full and complete instructions about what has transpired on a previous occasion. These inconsistencies have been remedied both by the written transcripts of the hearings which have been made available for subsequent hearings and by reference to my own judicial notes.27.By the beginning of 2022 with no apparent resolution in sight, I listed the matter for further directions.