The expression ‘cross-demand’ in rule 6.5(4)(a) did not imply any kind of procedural or juridical relationship to the debt subject to the statutory demand. All it meant was that the demand was one that went the other way, i.e. was a demand by the debtor on the creditor. The cross-claim must still be one which … Continue reading Popely v Popely: CA 30 Apr 2004