Popely v Popely

Popely v Popely

A debtor's claim in related proceedings can constitute a 'cross demand' under r.6.5(4)(a) even if the statutory demand is based on a costs order from those proceedings. The existence of a genuine and serious cross demand requires the statutory demand to be set aside unless special circumstances exist. The district judge's failure to give reasons invalidated the decision, and the deputy judge correctly exercised discretion to set aside the statutory demand.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: John Henry Popely; Defendant/appellant: Ronald Albert Popely
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 April 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court (chancery Division)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Statutory Demand, Bankruptcy, Costs Orders, Cross Demand, Discretion to Set Aside Statutory Demand
Insolvency Law Civil Procedure Statutory Demand Bankruptcy Costs Orders Cross Demand Discretion to Set Aside Statutory Demand

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 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Henry Popely

Claimant/respondent

Ronald Albert Popely

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court (chancery Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a debtor's claim in related proceedings constitutes a 'cross demand' under Insolvency Rule 6.5(4)(a) for purposes of setting aside a statutory demand based on a costs order.
  2. 2 Whether the court should exercise its discretion to set aside the statutory demand in the circumstances of this case.
  3. 3 Whether the district judge's failure to give reasons for dismissing the application to set aside the statutory demand invalidates the decision.

Ratio Decidendi

A debtor's claim in related proceedings can constitute a 'cross demand' under r.6.5(4)(a) even if the statutory demand is based on a costs order from those proceedings. The existence of a genuine and serious cross demand requires the statutory demand to be set aside unless special circumstances exist. The district judge's failure to give reasons invalidated the decision, and the deputy judge correctly exercised discretion to set aside the statutory demand.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Statutory demand set aside
  • Costs of £20,750 to be paid to the appellant within 14 days