Re Sarflax Ltd Ch 592; 1 All E.R. 529 is a UK insolvency law case concerning voidable preferences and fraudulent trading, now in the Insolvency Act 1986. It concerns the definition of "intention to defraud", which is found in a number of legal provisions.
Facts
| Fraudulent trading cases | |
|---|---|
| Re Sarflax Ltd Ch 592 | |
| R v Grantham QB 675 | |
| Re Augustus Barnett & Son Ltd BCLC 170 | |
| Re a Company (No 001418 of 1988) BCC 526 | |
| Morphitis v Bernasconi [2003] EWCA Civ 289 | |
| Jetivia SA v Bilta (UK) Limited (in liquidation) [2015] UKSC 23 | |
| See United Kingdom insolvency law |
Sarflax Ltd was in liquidation. It incurred another debt after a judgment that it had delivered unsatisfactory goods. The liquidator moved for a declaration that the delivery of these unsatisfactory goods was evidence of fraudulent trading. It also argued Sarflax had preferred other creditors over the deliveree, knowing it was unable to pay its debts in full.
Judgment
Oliver J held that "intention to defraud" in the voidable preference section (now Insolvency Act 1986, section 239) did not cover a case where a debtor merely knew or had grounds to think he had no sufficient funds to pay creditors in full.
See also
- R v. Grantham QB 675
- Re Augustus Barnett & Son Ltd BCLC 170
- Re a Company (No 001418 of 1988) BCC 526
References
- Gary Scanlan (2003) Company Lawyer 234