The High Court refused Maureen Hughes’s application for a Mareva injunction to freeze assets of her employer, Ricoh Printing Systems Europe, formerly Hitachi Koki Imaging Solutions Europe. Mr Justice Clarke said he was not satisfied that the conditions for the injunction had been established.
Hughes’s underlying case, brought in 2001, alleges that Ricoh wrongfully reduced and then stopped disability benefit due under her employment contract. The payments were later reinstated. The judgment said the claim then appeared to involve about €133,000. Ricoh disputes liability and joined Standard Life Assurance Company as a third party, seeking an indemnity if it is held liable. No conclusion was reached on those underlying claims.
The injunction application arose after Ricoh said it would cease operations in Ireland and Europe on 30 June 2006. Hughes sought to preserve funds for her claim and a further possible claim relating to future disability benefits. The court recorded that Standard Life had agreed to maintain her disability cover after her employment ended, allowing her to claim directly from the insurer from 1 July 2006. The judge said this removed the need for Ricoh to set aside funds for a possible future-benefit claim.
Evidence from Ricoh’s finance director put the company’s realisable assets at about €7.2 million and liabilities at about €10.7 million, including winding-down costs. Ricoh intended to meet the shortfall through borrowing from its parent. The original application had sought to freeze €700,000, including for possible future benefits and costs.
The judge said a Mareva injunction could, in principle, be available where an insolvent company intended to handle assets in a way that breached insolvency-law obligations and could affect a claimant. But he considered two circumstances relevant here: Ricoh’s potential indemnity claim against Standard Life, and a sworn statement from Ricoh Printing Systems America that it intended to lend Ricoh any sums needed to meet further legitimate liabilities, including a liability to Hughes.
The court did not decide whether Ricoh was liable to Hughes or whether Standard Life would have to indemnify it. It held that Ricoh’s directors had ample reason to believe funds would be available if Hughes ultimately succeeded, so it was not appropriate to infer an intention to defeat her recovery. The application was refused; the judgment did not determine the underlying employment claim.