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 can be characterised as genuine and serious, or of substance.
Judges:
Mr Justice Moses Lord Justice Ward Lord Justice Jonathan Parker
Citations:
[2004] EWCA Civ 463, [2004] BPIR 778
Links:
Statutes:
Insolvency Rules 1986 (SI 1986/1925) 6.5(4)(a)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Popely v Popely ChD 25-Jul-2003
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 . .
Applied – Seawind Tankers Corporation v Bayoil SA CA 12-Oct-1998
Although a company admitted a debt, it was nevertheless right to set aside a petition for winding up under that debt, where the company had an unquantified but greater counterclaim within the same proceedings, even if that claim could not presently . .
See Also – Popely v Popely CA 3-Oct-2002
. .
Cited by:
Cited – Bryce Ashworth v Newnote Ltd CA 27-Jul-2007
The appellant challenged a refusal to set aside a statutory demand, in respect of his director’s loan account with the respondent company, saying the court should have accepted other accounts to set off against that debt.
Held: A statutory . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Insolvency
Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.196628