Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

Stoneblock · 01/10/2025 11:30

Good, but the case is actually against the company PPE Medpro Ltd, which has net assets of £124k. The government will never see this money.

Youngatheart00 · 01/10/2025 11:33

Will there be recourse to her personally though? Hopefully this can be pursued through the courts

Stoneblock · 01/10/2025 11:35

Youngatheart00 · 01/10/2025 11:33

Will there be recourse to her personally though? Hopefully this can be pursued through the courts

Why would there be? She's got no involvement in the company, it's her husbands. The company is a seperate legal entity, there's no recourse to him (or the £65m he's been paid by the company) either.

YorkieTheRabbit · 01/10/2025 12:13

If the Limited company doesn’t have the money in either cash or assets, then the government won’t be able to recover it.

Youngatheart00 · 01/10/2025 12:43

Did you watch the recent documentary? She comes across as very much involved in the running of the company.

EstherGreenwood63 · 01/10/2025 12:49

Very happy about this. Odious pair. Truly dreadful people.

Stoneblock · 01/10/2025 12:53

Youngatheart00 · 01/10/2025 12:43

Did you watch the recent documentary? She comes across as very much involved in the running of the company.

I'm sure she is, but she has no legal responsibilities.

MO0N · 01/10/2025 12:53

That's what being wealthy is about, the more money you have the greater is your ability to protect that money from tax authorities or anyone else who has a legal claim on it.

GoInFor · 01/10/2025 13:18

Stoneblock · 01/10/2025 11:30

Good, but the case is actually against the company PPE Medpro Ltd, which has net assets of £124k. The government will never see this money.

And has gone into administration….

Hopefully all directors will be struck off and the administration challenged.

At least the court judgement shows she lied as did her husband.

Also shows how Conservative government actions benefited their own, helping their mates profit from us, the tax payer, at a time of crisis. (and all while the more normal of us were volunteering in our communities).

nomas · 02/10/2025 16:27

Stoneblock · 01/10/2025 11:35

Why would there be? She's got no involvement in the company, it's her husbands. The company is a seperate legal entity, there's no recourse to him (or the £65m he's been paid by the company) either.

Surely if her husband is the company's ultimate beneficial owner, then there is some recourse to him?

If not, this is a travesty.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page