| Source: | All England Reporter |
| Publisher Citation: | [2002] All ER (D) 100 (Mar) |
| Court: | Chancery Division |
| Judge: | Kevin Garnett QC sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court |
| Representation | Jeremy Garrood (instructed by Barrett & Thomson, Slough) for the applicant. |
| The respondent appeared by its representative. | |
| Judgment Dates: | 8 March 2002 |
Catchwords
Company - Winding up - Restraining presentation of petition - Respondent presenting winding up petition against applicant in relation to payment of retention fee for building works - Debt disputed by applicant - Whether petition should be restrained.
The Case
On an application to restrain the presentation of a winding up petition the court held that there was a bona fide dispute between the parties and there was no evidence that the applicant company was insolvent. Accordingly, the respondent's statutory demand should never have been served. It followed that the respondent would be restrained from issuing a winding up petition based on the statutory demand.
Practice Areas
If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.
Lexis®Library
- The All England Law Reports comprises judgments with headnotes and catchwords indicating the area of law and key issues of the case prepared by legally qualified editorsFind AllER Reports
- Cases related to this particular case that are related to, or discuss this caseView related cases
- Commentary discussing this particular case from LexisLibrary's comprehensive range of titles including Butterworths, Halsbury's and TolleyView related commentary
