Wave Lending Ltd v Parmar & Anor

Wave Lending Ltd v Parmar & Anor

The petitions did not comply with section 269 because they lacked a statement of the estimated value of the security, and did not comply with section 267 because the sum claimed was not a liquidated sum. Therefore, the bankruptcy orders could not stand and the petitions required amendment.

Parties
Petitioner/respondent: Wave Lending Limited; Debtor/appellant: Thakorbai Ranchhodji Parmar; Debtor/appellant: Rama Parmar
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy Appeal / Appeal From Bankruptcy Orders
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Bankruptcy Petitions, Secured and Unsecured Debts, Liquidated Sum Requirement, Statutory Demands, Amendment of Petitions
Insolvency Law Bankruptcy Petitions Secured and Unsecured Debts Liquidated Sum Requirement Statutory Demands Amendment of Petitions

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wave Lending Limited

Petitioner/respondent

Thakorbai Ranchhodji Parmar

Debtor/appellant

Rama Parmar

Debtor/appellant

Procedural Posture

Bankruptcy Appeal / Appeal From Bankruptcy Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a bankruptcy petition based on an unsecured portion of a partly secured debt, calculated by estimated security value, satisfies the requirements of section 267 and/or section 269 of the Insolvency Act 1986
  2. 2 Whether the sum claimed in the petition was a 'liquidated sum' under section 267(2) of the Insolvency Act 1986
  3. 3 Whether errors in the statutory demand as to the appropriate court invalidate the demand

Ratio Decidendi

The petitions did not comply with section 269 because they lacked a statement of the estimated value of the security, and did not comply with section 267 because the sum claimed was not a liquidated sum. Therefore, the bankruptcy orders could not stand and the petitions required amendment.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Existing bankruptcy orders discharged
  • Petitions remitted to the County Court for determination of any applications to amend and further directions