The test for the exercise of the discretion to set aside a statutory demand is whether there are circumstances which would make it unjust for the statutory demand to give rise to insolvency consequences in the particular case. Judges: HHJ Weeks QC Citations: [2008] 1 BCLC 314, [2005] EWHC 3519 Statutes: Insolvency Rules 1986 6.5(4)(a) … Continue reading Chan v Appasamy: 2008
The debtor had agreed to buy a company from the petitioner, the price to be payable in instalments by means of post-dated cheques. The debtor alleged misrepresentation and stopped one of the cheques. The petitioner served a statutory demand based on the dishonoured cheque. The district judge dismissed the debtor’s application to set aside the … Continue reading Hofer v Strawson: ChD 31 Mar 1999
Whether the appellants appeared to have a counterclaim against AIB which equals or exceeds the amount of the debt specified in the statutory demands. That is a ground on which a court may grant an application to set aside a statutory demand: rule 6.5(4)(a) Insolvency Rules 1986. Citations: [1998] 2 All ER 929, [1998] EWCA … Continue reading AIB Finance Limited v Alsop and Another: CA 3 Mar 1998
The claimant appealed refusal to set aside a statutory demand served by the defendant. The parties had become embroiled in criminal proceedings and the defendant sought recovery of assets from the claimant. In those proceedings a costs order had been made and that was the basis of the statutory demand. The claimant said that his … Continue reading Popely v Popely: ChD 25 Jul 2003
The claimant appealed refusal to set aside a statutory demand made by the respondent society. The proposed defence had been already been dismissed by the courts. Held: Such a consideration was very relevant, but not necessarily determinative. The debtor was obliged to proceed quickly, and could not delay his application. He had to demonstrate a … Continue reading Thomas-Everard and Others v Society of Lloyd’s: ChD 18 Jul 2003
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
