New Judgment: Transworld Payment Solutions & Hunt v FCIB & Deuss [2025] EWHC 2480 (Ch)

Mr Deuss had been accused of dishonestly seeking to capture for a bank he owned, and was CEO of, (FCIB) the business of traders engaged in MTIC fraud and dishonestly causing a UK based marketing entity (TWPS) to assist in capturing that business. The Claimants sought over £280m from Mr Deuss. Leech J dismissed these allegations entirely, considering the case “obscure”, “speculative”, “highly artificial” and an “an attempt to elevate an allegation of negligence into dishonesty”.

Leech J also made a number of other important findings:

• 1 ) He found that the Claimants had failed to make out their case on large parts of the quantum claimed. He was critical of the failure to call expert evidence to explain and justify the quantum and felt bound to record that this failure had increased the time taken to produce the judgment considerably.

• 2) He rejected the Claimants’ case that the Liquidators’ decision not to take a limitation defence in respect of inbound claims into the First Claimant’s estate was determinative. He held this decision was res inter alios acta and not legally relevant and that it was not reasonable for the Court to rely on that decision. In coming to this conclusion Leech J noted that the Liquidator’s funding arrangement was “by any standards extraordinary”. Leech J noted that, while the claims were ostensibly brought for HMRC’s ultimate benefit, HMRC would see almost none of the proceeds in the event the claims were successful, and the claims were primarily brought for the benefit of the Liquidator and his partners.

• 3) He held that large parts of the claim were time-barred and rejected the Claimants’ reliance on section 32 of the Limitation Act. He held that a reasonably diligent liquidator would by 2007 have had sufficient information to plead a fraud claim against the Defendants.

• 4) He also held that the General Rolling Stock principle (that a limitation period ceases to run against a company in liquidation) has no application to companies in a foreign insolvency process. He also rejected the Claimants’ argument that provisions of the Limitation Act could be disapplied by virtue of modified universalism.

• 5) He held that the Claimants had failed to make out their case that Mr Deuss was a de facto or shadow director of TWPS. The allegation that Mr Deuss was a shadow director was not properly pleaded and the allegation that he was a de facto director was not supported by the evidence.

• 6) He held that the claims would, in any event, have been barred by the Curacao law principle of forfeiture of rights. He held that, given settlement agreements entered into in Curacao and the negotiations around them, the Claimants were acting in a manner which could not be reconciled according to standards of reasonableness and fairness in bringing the claims.

The counsel team comprised Bankim Thanki KC (Fountain Court), Saul Lemer (One Essex Court) and Paul, and they were instructed by Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan UK LLP (Richard East, Cordelia Rayner, Jasdeep Gill, Muzhgan Wahaj and Tishta Tandon).

The judgment is available here.