The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the appellant petitioner's appeal against the Chancery Division's decision to dismiss its winding up petition on the grounds that it had failed to rebut the presumption that Malta, rather than the UK, had been the respondent company's centre of main interest (COMI) for the purpose of art 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2015/848. The court held that: (i) the Chancery Division had correctly concluded that the lower court judge had erred when he had conducted a comparison of the factors which had pointed to various countries without starting from the presumption that the respondent's COMI had been Malta; (ii) factors which related to a fraud which had been deliberately concealed from third parties, and which had only became apparent as a result of subsequent investigations by the relevant authorities, had not been relevant as they had not been ascertainable by third parties; (iii) while the contractual terms upon which the appellant had dealt with the respondent would not have been known to third parties, they should not be excluded from the consideration: and (iv) the fact that the company had entered into a number of international commercial contracts, which had been in English and governed by English Law, said nothing about where the respondent had conducted the administration of its interests on a regular basis.