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 gennuine triable issue. And there was no reason why challenges at the stage of the petition should be subject to different tests of substantiality. The court of appeal had given leave to appeal. The earlier decision was not determinative, and the statutory demands could be set aside.
Judges:
Laddie J
Citations:
Times 28-Aug-2003
Statutes:
Insolvency Rules 1986 (1986 No 1925) 6.5(4)(a)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Society of Lloyd’s v Laws and others ComC 24-Apr-2003
. .
Cited – Jaffray and others v Society of Lloyd’s CA 26-Jul-2002
There is no more scope for corporate dishonesty in deceit than in misfeasance, other than by the attribution to a corporate body of the dishonesty of an individual. It was alleged that there was unfairness through inequality of representation: ‘In . .
Cited – Society of Lloyd’s v Jaffray and others QBD 3-Aug-2000
Any party was free to put in evidence statements where the party who had prepared them had himself decided not to call the evidence. There was no power to call the person to give that evidence, but it could be admitted on the basis that it was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice, Insolvency
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.186094
