Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Discuss the latest legal developments, ask questions, and share best practice with other LexisPSL subscribers
The decision in Dowling v Promontoria (Arrow) Ltd  Lexis Citation 292,  All ER (D) 82 (Sep), which resulted from an application to set aside a statutory demand, demonstrates that assignees of debt need to exercise care if they are to enforce their claim by the summary bankruptcy route.
The decision highlights practical points that assignees should bear in mind, as well as the impact of the purview doctrine in relation to guarantees.
The Bankruptcy High Court set aside a statutory demand, which hadbeen served on the applicant guarantor, where the respondent, having hadits title put in issue, hadfailed properly to prove its status as assignee in respect of the debt forming the subject matter of the statutory demand. The court further held that the applicant hadraised a strongly arguable case that a second facility, which the respondent relied on in respect of the statutory demand, was not within the purview of the first guarantee and, further, that any rights which the respondent might have hadto enforce the applicant's obligations under the first guarantee appeared to be statute barred.
What are the practical implications of this case?
Creditors who are the assignee of a debt should ensure that:
Further, where a lender grants further facilities to a borrower and the borrower’s pre-existing liabilities are guaranteed, to ensure that either the further facilities are covered by that existing guarantee, or that a fresh guarantee is obtained.
What was the background to this case?
The applicant, Mr Dowling, was an Irish property developer. He hadgranted an unlimited personal guarantee on 6 December 2006 (the first guarantee) in favour of Anglo Irish Bank Corporation Plc (the bank) for the debts of a company called Danum
Access this article and thousands of others like it free by subscribing to our blog.
Read full article
Already a subscriber? Login
0330 161 1234