Luttman-Johnson v West Sussex Agri Ltd [2021] EWHC 2580 (Ch) (27 September 2021)

Luttman-Johnson v West Sussex Agri Ltd [2021] EWHC 2580 (Ch) (27 September 2021)

The judge below made no material error in finding that the applicants' evidence raised substantial grounds for disputing the debt based on alleged misrepresentation, and that the issues of affirmation and estoppel could not be resolved without a trial. The applicants' conduct did not amount to clear affirmation or estoppel as a matter of law on the evidence available at this stage. The statutory demands were therefore properly set aside.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 2580 (Ch)
Parties
Applicant/respondent: William Luttman-Johnson; Applicant/respondent: Leon Mekitarian; Respondent/appellant: West Sussex Agri Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 September 2021
Procedural Posture
Insolvency Appeal / Appeal From Order Setting Aside Statutory Demands
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Statutory Demands, Misrepresentation, Affirmation, Estoppel, Personal Guarantees, Summary Judgment Threshold
Insolvency Contract Guarantee Law Setting Aside Statutory Demands Misrepresentation Affirmation Estoppel Personal Guarantees +1 more

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Luttman-Johnson

Applicant/respondent

Leon Mekitarian

Applicant/respondent

West Sussex Agri Limited

Respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Insolvency Appeal / Appeal From Order Setting Aside Statutory Demands

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the statutory demands should be set aside on the basis of substantial grounds for disputing the debt, specifically misrepresentation inducing the guarantees and subsequent affirmation or estoppel.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants affirmed the guarantees or are estopped from relying on misrepresentation as a defence.

Ratio Decidendi

The judge below made no material error in finding that the applicants' evidence raised substantial grounds for disputing the debt based on alleged misrepresentation, and that the issues of affirmation and estoppel could not be resolved without a trial. The applicants' conduct did not amount to clear affirmation or estoppel as a matter of law on the evidence available at this stage. The statutory demands were therefore properly set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Statutory demands set aside
  • WSA to pay costs of WLJ and LM, with costs from 1 August 2019 up to and including the hearing before the judge to be assessed on the indemnity basis