Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2017] All ER (D) 151 (Nov)
Court: Bankruptcy High Court
Judge:

Deputy Registrar Garwood

Representation Richard Millett QC and Stewart Chirnside (instructed by Day Sparkes) for WG.
  Joseph Curl (instructed by Ashfords LLP) for WH.
Judgment Dates: 15 November 2017

Catchwords

Insolvency - Statutory demand - Application to set aside statutory demand issued pursuant to guarantee

The Case

Insolvency Statutory demand. Any fiduciary duty which the respondent de jure director (and creditor) of a company in administration had had to act in the interests of the company had been to look to the interests of its secured creditors, and not to the creditors as a whole. So held the Bankruptcy Court in dismissing an application to set aside a statutory demand, which had been based on a guarantee signed by the applicant in respect of the respondent's loan to the company. Among other things, the court dismissed the applicant's arguments that the statutory demand should be set aside on the grounds of misrepresentation, collateral contract or estoppel. Further, it held that it was fanciful to argue that the applicant might have a counterclaim, set off or cross-demand (equalling equalled or exceeding his liability under the guarantee) on the basis that the respondent had acted positively to persuade potential investors not to invest in the company and-or to seek to have his plan for a pre-pack administration concerning the company agreed.

Practice Areas

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.