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.
Find up-to-date guidance on points of law and then easily pull up sources to support your advice with Lexis PSL
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
An appeal against a statutory demand where a cross-claim would reduce the sum to less than the bankruptcy level of £750 led to an interesting judgment. Marc Brown, a barrister with St Philips Commercial chambers, explains the issues surrounding the decision in Howell v Lerwick Commercial Mortgage Corporation Ltd.
Howell v Lerwick Commercial Mortgage Corporation Ltd  EWHC 1177 (Ch),  All ER (D) 42 (May)
The appellant appealed against a decision of a district judge dismissing his application to set aside a statutory demand. The debt itself was not disputed but the appellant relied on a cross-claim which did not equal the debt but fell short of it by less than £750. The Chancery Division held that a statutory demand should not necessarily be set aside under the residual discretion under rule 6.5(4)(d) of the Insolvency Rules 1986 (IR 1986), SI 1986/1925, simply because the undisputed part was less than £750. On the facts of the present case, the appropriate course was not to set aside the statutory demand under IR 1986, r 6.5(4)(d).
The respondent had issued a statutory demand against the appellant in the sum of £4,736.43, being the sum of two costs orders totalling £3,935, plus interest and the costs of the demand.
The appellant sought to set aside the statutory demand on the grounds that he had a cross-claim. This cross-claim was the subject of an issued claim in the sum of £2,750. He also wished to amend that claim to claim a further £14,763.60. However, the application to amend and an appeal against it were dismissed, leaving just the cross-claim of £2,750.
On the hearing of the application to set aside the statutory demand, the district judge reduced the demand debt to £3,935 as the respondent was not entitled to interest on the costs orders (being for less than £5,000 in the
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