Foden v Humphry & Co (A Firm) & Anor [2002] EWCA Civ 1714 (8 November 2002)

Foden v Humphry & Co (A Firm) & Anor [2002] EWCA Civ 1714 (8 November 2002)

The applications to set aside the statutory demands were properly dismissed because they were based on valid, undischarged costs orders, and no sufficient grounds were shown to set them aside. Allegations of bias, malice, or human rights breaches were unfounded. The appeals were hopeless and raised no important point of principle or practice.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 1714
Parties
Claimant/applicant: Veronica Beryl Foden; Defendant/respondent: Humphry & Co (A Firm); Defendant/respondent: Wolferstans (A Firm)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 November 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal From High Court Orders
Outcome
Applications for permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Statutory Demand, Setting Aside Statutory Demand, Costs Orders, Permission to Appeal, Human Rights (article 6, Article 1 Protocol 1)
Civil Procedure Costs Insolvency Statutory Demand Setting Aside Statutory Demand Costs Orders Permission to Appeal Human Rights (article 6, Article 1 Protocol 1)

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

Parties

Veronica Beryl Foden

Claimant/applicant

Humphry & Co (A Firm)

Defendant/respondent

Wolferstans (A Firm)

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal From High Court Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Judge Overend was right to dismiss applications to set aside statutory demands based on costs orders
  2. 2 Whether refusal to set aside statutory demands breached applicant's human rights
  3. 3 Whether there was bias, malice, or conspiracy by judges or solicitors

Ratio Decidendi

The applications to set aside the statutory demands were properly dismissed because they were based on valid, undischarged costs orders, and no sufficient grounds were shown to set them aside. Allegations of bias, malice, or human rights breaches were unfounded. The appeals were hopeless and raised no important point of principle or practice.

Court Disposition

Applications for permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Application for permission to appeal refused