Garrow v Society of Lloyd’s: ChD 18 Jun 1999

Lloyds sought to claim against the Names on a ‘pay now, sue later’ clause.
Held: The power to order a stay of execution for possession remained and could be exercised in an appropriate case even though a cross-claim under which it was requested, could have been raised at an earlier stage in the proceedings. There was no hard rule of law to prevent such a request.
Jacob J said: ‘The other point urged upon me was the ‘pay now sue later’ clause. Mr Garrow had agreed that if he was to bring a cross claim he would nonetheless pay the claim at once. This is of course true, and if he had the means then I have no doubt that he should be made to do so. But I am concerned with whether the draconian effect of the bankruptcy should be imposed when he may have a perfectly good cross claim. It seems to me that this would be disproportionate, given the fact that with the Commercial Court decision likely soon, there is no tangible benefit to be had.’


Jacob J


Times 18-Jun-1999, [1999] BPIR 668

Cited by:

Appeal fromGarrow v Society of Lloyd’s CA 28-Oct-1999
A proper counterclaim against Lloyd’s of London for fraudulent misrepresentation with an amount at stake equal to the amount claimed was a proper basis for setting aside a statutory demand for a sum due to Lloyd’s, despite the existence of a deed . .
CitedRemblance v Octagon Assets Ltd CA 17-Jun-2009
A statutory demand was served against the guarantor of the lease after rent arrears arose. He applied for the demand to be set aside, and now appealed against its refusal. He said that the court would have set aside such a demand against the tenant, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Insolvency

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.80759