Howell v Lerwick Commercial Mortgage Corporation Ltd

Howell v Lerwick Commercial Mortgage Corporation Ltd

The statutory demand should not be set aside merely because Mr Howell's cross-claim reduces the debt below £750, as there were other debts owed to Lerwick that could be aggregated for a bankruptcy petition. The inclusion of interest and costs in the statutory demand was improper, but the demand for the principal costs orders was valid. The appeal is dismissed.

Parties
Claimant and Appellant: Mark Howell; Defendant and Respondent: Lerwick Commercial Mortgage Corporation Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 May 2015
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy Appeal / Appeal From Central London County Court Decision on Statutory Demand
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Statutory Demand, Cross Claim, Interest on Judgment Debts, Costs Orders, Discretion Under Insolvency Rules
Insolvency Bankruptcy Statutory Demand Cross Claim Interest on Judgment Debts Costs Orders Discretion Under Insolvency Rules

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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mark Howell

Claimant and Appellant

Lerwick Commercial Mortgage Corporation Limited

Defendant and Respondent

Procedural Posture

Bankruptcy Appeal / Appeal From Central London County Court Decision on Statutory Demand

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a statutory demand should be set aside where a debtor has a cross-claim reducing the debt below the bankruptcy threshold
  2. 2 Whether interest and costs can be included in a statutory demand
  3. 3 Application of residual discretion under Insolvency Rules where cross-claim falls short of debt

Ratio Decidendi

The statutory demand should not be set aside merely because Mr Howell's cross-claim reduces the debt below £750, as there were other debts owed to Lerwick that could be aggregated for a bankruptcy petition. The inclusion of interest and costs in the statutory demand was improper, but the demand for the principal costs orders was valid. The appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Statutory demand upheld for £3,935
  • No relief granted to appellant