Smith, Re (Ruling - Piggott condition)

For the purposes of the application, the court proceeded on the footing that a good arguable case had been established. In particular, the court accepted that the SFO had made out a good arguable case that the shares constituted realisable property of Dr Smith. That conclusion was provisional and concerned the threshold for the application; it did not finally determine the underlying dispute or prevent the issue being argued at a later stage.

The ruling arose in proceedings concerning Dr Gerald Smith and an application involving the SFO, receivers and other interested parties. The SFO relied on evidence said to establish that shares were realisable property belonging to Dr Smith. No party argued against that threshold, apart from Phoenix and Minardi, whose representative reserved the right to do so later while supporting the making of a receivership order.

The immediate issue was whether the court should proceed on the basis that the required good arguable case had been shown.

1. The court proceeded on the footing that a good arguable case had been established.
2. For the purposes of the application, the SFO was treated as having established a good arguable case that the shares constituted realisable property of Dr Smith. The court adopted that position on the basis of the evidence relied on by the SFO.
3. Phoenix and Minardi did not seek to argue the contrary at that stage. Their position was that they wished a receivership order to be made and reserved the ability to challenge the characterisation of the shares on a later occasion. The SFO confirmed that the issue could be addressed later.
4. The ruling therefore recorded the provisional basis on which the application would proceed. The supplied text contains no final disposition or costs order.