Shamji v Johnson Matthey Bankers Ltd
UK bankruptcy hearing
Shamji v Johnson Matthey Bankers Ltd [1991] BCLC 36 is a UK insolvency law case concerning the administration procedure when a company is unable to repay its debts.
Facts
Abdul Shamji controlled a group of companies. They were in debt to JMB who had mortgages and guarantees. JMB wanted payment. The bank agreed to release the debt if Shamji paid £14m within 21 days and this could be extended by 14 days if the bank viewed negotiations as proceeding properly. Six days after the 21-day period, JMB appointed receivers. Shamji and the companies went to court for an injunction, arguing the bank had breached the contract. They argued there was a duty on JMB as mortgagee, when appointing a receiver, to consider relevant matters including the effect of an appointment on refinancing negotiations.
Judgment
High Court
Hoffmann J dismissed the appeal. He said the bank was entitled contractually to appoint receivers.
The public source identifies “Shamji v Johnson Matthey Bankers Ltd” as uK bankruptcy hearing. This brief keeps that definition visible, then builds a research path around Shamji, Johnson and Matthey.
Why this record matters
A short description can identify a subject without explaining its stakes. For “Shamji v Johnson Matthey Bankers Ltd”, the useful work is to connect “uK bankruptcy hearing” to the records capable of establishing context and consequence.
Vocabulary and entity names are the principal evidence signals here, because they determine the precision of every later search. The source revision retrieved here is dated Jun 6, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q7487580. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1991.
A concise general-reference account can conceal disagreements about scope, terminology or the weight assigned to individual sources. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Shamji v Johnson Matthey Bankers Ltd”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Shamji v Johnson Matthey Bankers Ltd primary sources, Shamji v Johnson Matthey Bankers Ltd archive and Shamji research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Shamji v Johnson Matthey Bankers Ltd”?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Shamji v Johnson Matthey Bankers Ltd” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.