Widow seeks to avoid £300,000 inheritance tax bill due on a gift made by her late husband because the gift was made before they were married The widow of one of the heirs to the JD Sports fortune is applying to the Court to rescind the gift of half...
Dispensing with professional advice and buying a business on nothing more secure than a handshake is a recipe for disaster. That was certainly so in the case of an entrepreneur who found himself in a sea of trouble after purchasing the assets of a company which sold catering and kitchen equipment to restaurants.
The entrepreneur had high hopes for the future when he paid £100,000 to the owner of the company to acquire its trading stock, equipment and other assets. He set up a new company to operate the old company's former business. He sought no professional assistance and carried out only the most rudimentary due diligence checks before proceeding with the acquisition.
The owner took up employment as manager with the new company, to which he owed a duty of fidelity. The new company did not, however, thrive and swiftly went into liquidation. The owner was said to have operated the new company for his own benefit. Following its demise, he was said to have revived the old company, continuing to trade as before from the same premises.
The entrepreneur launched proceedings against the owner on the basis that he had worked against the new company's interests and, by his actions, brought the business down. Following a trial, a judge found that the owner had diverted payments that were due to the new company to his personal bank accounts and to the bank accounts of the old company, over which he retained control. He also used his position as manager to divert business opportunities away from the new company.
Following a further hearing, the High Court noted that the absence of due diligence made accurate quantification of the entrepreneur's claim extremely difficult. There were no financial accounts in respect of the new company, and the old company's accounts did not accurately record its turnover. The Court did the best it could in the circumstances and ordered the owner to pay the entrepreneur various sums in damages which, when totted up, would run well into six figures.