Popely v Popely [2004] EWCA Civ 463 (30 April 2004)

Popely v Popely [2004] EWCA Civ 463 (30 April 2004)

A genuine and substantial claim by the debtor against the creditor, even if not a set-off in the strict sense, can constitute a 'cross demand' under Rule 6.5(4)(a) and justify setting aside a statutory demand, unless special circumstances exist. The costs order in the Crown Court, though related to the underlying dispute, does not preclude the debtor's claim from being a cross demand. The court should exercise its discretion to set aside the statutory demand in the absence of special circumstances, and the failure of the district judge to give reasons was a material error.

Citation
[2004] EWCA Civ 463
Parties
Claimant/respondent: John Henry Popely; Defendant/appellant: Ronald Albert Popely
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 April 2004
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) From High Court, Chancery Division / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; statutory demand set aside.
Legal Topics
Statutory Demand, Counterclaim, Set Off, Cross Demand, Costs Orders, Discretion to Set Aside Statutory Demand
Insolvency Law Bankruptcy Civil Procedure Statutory Demand Counterclaim Set Off Cross Demand Costs Orders +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 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Henry Popely

Claimant/respondent

Ronald Albert Popely

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) From High Court, Chancery Division / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a claim in pending proceedings constitutes a 'cross demand' under Insolvency Rule 6.5(4)(a) sufficient to set aside a statutory demand based on a costs order.
  2. 2 Whether the court should exercise its discretion to set aside a statutory demand where the underlying debt arises from a costs order in related proceedings.
  3. 3 Consequences of a district judge failing to give reasons when dismissing an application to set aside a statutory demand.

Ratio Decidendi

A genuine and substantial claim by the debtor against the creditor, even if not a set-off in the strict sense, can constitute a 'cross demand' under Rule 6.5(4)(a) and justify setting aside a statutory demand, unless special circumstances exist. The costs order in the Crown Court, though related to the underlying dispute, does not preclude the debtor's claim from being a cross demand. The court should exercise its discretion to set aside the statutory demand in the absence of special circumstances, and the failure of the district judge to give reasons was a material error.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; statutory demand set aside.

Orders

  • Statutory demand dated 23 April 2003 set aside.
  • Costs of the appeal to be paid by the appellant (Ronald Albert Popely).