Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: Oliver Wooding, barrister and mediator at St John’s Chambers, examines the High Court’s decision in Webster v Ashcroft that a district judge at first instance had not erred in law or wrongly exercised his discretion in ordering the appellant to pay the costs which the respondent had incurred in presenting a bankruptcy petition against the appellant, or in refusing to order the respondent to pay the appellant’s costs. The High Court held that an application by the appellant, who was subject to an extended civil restraint order (ECRO), to set aside the respondent’s statutory demand without first having received permission under the ECRO for that application was not retrospectively validated by a subsequent order giving permission under the ECRO. Therefore, when the bankruptcy petition had been presented before that permission was granted there was not an outstanding application to set aside the statutory demand which, under section 267(2)(d) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986), would have prevented the bankruptcy petition from having been validly presented.