MBS Recovery Ltd v Quinney [2025] EWHC 546 (Ch) (11 March 2025)

MBS Recovery Ltd v Quinney [2025] EWHC 546 (Ch) (11 March 2025)

The Judge acted under the correct insolvency jurisdiction, and the statutory demands were insufficiently clear and not compliant with section 267 IA 1986; the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 546 (Ch)
Parties
Appellant (respondent to the Set Aside Application): MBS Recovery Limited; Respondent (applicant in the Set Aside Application): Kenneth George Quinney
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 March 2025
Procedural Posture
Chancery Appeal / Appeal From Order Setting Aside Statutory Demands
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Statutory Demand, Set Aside Application, Jurisdiction, Costs
Insolvency Civil Procedure Statutory Demand Set Aside Application Jurisdiction Costs

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MBS Recovery Limited

Appellant (respondent to the Set Aside Application)

Kenneth George Quinney

Respondent (applicant in the Set Aside Application)

Procedural Posture

Chancery Appeal / Appeal From Order Setting Aside Statutory Demands

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the statutory demands could be set aside for uncertainty or lack of clarity
  2. 2 Whether the Judge exercised the correct jurisdiction (Insolvency Rules vs Civil Procedure Rules)
  3. 3 Whether the costs were properly assessed

Ratio Decidendi

The Judge acted under the correct insolvency jurisdiction, and the statutory demands were insufficiently clear and not compliant with section 267 IA 1986; the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Judge's order setting aside statutory demands stands
  • Costs of the appeal to follow the event