Case details for Thomas John STODART

Name: Thomas John STODART

Name: MUIRFIELD (CONTRACTS) LIMITED & Ensco 395 Limited

Date of Birth: 5 / 11 / 1962

Date Order Starts: 11 / 10 / 2018

Disqualification Length: 9 Years 0 Month(s)

CRO Number: SC112140 / SC441868

Last Known Address: PO Box 215827, , , , Dubai,

Conduct: MUIRFIELD CONTRACTS LTD In the period 10 February 2015 to Administration on 12 March 2015 Thomas John Stodart (“Mr Stodart”) caused Muirfield Contracts Ltd (“Muirfield”) to make net payments to its holding company and a connected company totalling £883,281, which were to the risk and detriment of creditors when he was or should have been aware that Muirfield was unable to pay its creditors as and when due, was seeking but had not obtained new sources of funding and in the knowledge that the funds paid over would not be readily realisable for the benefit of Muirfield’s creditors and were at a risk of total loss of funds. In particular

  • Summaries of Muirfield’s available cash headroom sent by email from Muirfield’s former Finance and Administrative Manager to Mr Stodart between 04 February 2015 and 04 March 2015 record that he was or ought to have been aware of outstanding liabilities due to creditors. In particular summaries sent between 04 February 2015 and 06 February 2015 record liabilities due to creditors and for retentions of £3,749,000 and £1,324,000 respectively of which £2,859,000 were overdue. Summaries sent between 09 February 2015 and 13 February 2015 record liabilities to creditors and for retentions of £3,627,000 and £1,324,000 respectively of which £1,982,000 were overdue.
  • Company emails record that creditors were seeking the repayment of outstanding liabilities from Muirfield in February and March 2015, had stopped supplying the company with goods and services and had threated the company with legal action in respect of outstanding liabilities due
  • HM Revenue & Customs (“HMRC”) has submitted a claim in Muirfield’s Administration for outstanding Pay As You Earn (“PAYE”), Construction Industry Scheme tax (“CIS”) and interest of £982,257.09 for the tax months ending 05 December 2014 to 05 April 2015. The PAYE and CIS for these periods should have been paid to HMRC by 22 December 2014, 22 January 2015, 22 February 2015, 22 March 2015 and 22 April 2015 respectively. Correspondence from HMRC records that Muirfield came to a time to pay agreement with HMRC on 27 February 2015 in respect of outstanding PAYE and CIS of £620,968.71 of which a first payment of £207,281 was due to be paid on 16 March 2015. Accountants have confirmed that Mr Stodart was aware of the time to pay negotiations with HMRC
  • He had been in negotiation with a variety of potential funders but had no agreed source of additional funding
  • Contact had been made with an Insolvency Practitioner on 6 March 2015 with a view to putting Muirfield into Administration.
  • In the knowledge of these matters he caused Muirfield to pay the following sums to its holding company £300,000 on 10 February 2015, £309,670 on 5 March 2015, £18,500 on 9 March 2015 and £212,750 on 10 March 2015.
  • These payments were made at a time when its holding company was already a creditor of Muirfield for the sum in excess of £10,000,000 in respect of the purchase of Muirfield from its previous owner and the holding company had no other source of income than Muirfield and would thus be unable to repay these liabilities should Muirfield enter Insolvency.
  • As the sole director of the holding company he was aware that Muirfield was its sole source of income in this period and was in financial trouble, that the monies would be utilised by the holding company largely for deposit payments on residential property in the UAE and in the absence of completion funds were at a significant risk of being lost entirely.
  • In the period 16 February 2015 to 10 March 2015 Muirfield made additional net payments of £132,360.85 to a connected company. These payments consisted of £5,000 paid on 27 February 2015, £84,129 on 05 March 2015 and £43,285 on 10 March 2015. The latter payment was made on the same day as a notice of intention to place Muirfield into administration was made. Mr Stodart has confirmed that he was the sole shareholder of the connected company.
  • Mr Stodart has stated that the net payments of £132,360.85 to the connected company related to works completed. To date he has failed to provide specific documentation requested supporting that these payments related to works completed. The connected company however reached an agreement whereby it paid £85,000 in settlement of an inter loan account, including in respect of the net payments of £132,360.85, verifying that it was a debtor of Muirfield at Administration ENSCO 395 LTD Between 18 Feb 2015 and 6 March 2015 Mr Stodart caused Ensco 395 Ltd to make payments totalling £356,907 to a company for which he was a consultant and which provided finance to him in respect of personal business activities, and £148,840 to another company in respect of investments. These payments were funded by transfers from Muirfield which as its director he was aware was in financial difficulty and was owed in excess of £10,000,000 by Ensco 395 at the date of its administration on 12 March 2015. The payments made by Ensco 395 where to the risk and ultimate detriment of both companies (Muirfield being Ensco 395’s majority creditor) and their creditors, and unreasonable on account of the financial situation he has aware each company was subject to. In particular:
  • These payments were made at a time when Ensco 395 was already a creditor of Muirfield for a sum in excess of £10,000,000 in respect of the purchase of Muirfield from its previous owner and had no other source of income than Muirfield and would thus be unable to repay these liabilities should Muirfield enter Insolvency.
  • Of these payments £298,997 was paid on 6 March 2015 the date contact was made with an Insolvency Practitioner with a view to placing Muirfield ( the only source of income for Ensco 395 and a creditor of Ensco for over £10 million ) into Administration
  • As a director of Muirfield he was aware that Muirfield was in financial trouble.
  • The monies would be utilised for deposit payments on residential property in the UAE and in the absence of completion funds were at a significant risk of being lost entirely. 

    This information is correct as at 1 / 10 / 2018



    If you believe this page contains any errors, please email civil.proceedings.team@insolvency.gsi.gov.uk with details of the error that you have found.

  •