EDF Energy Customers Ltd v Re-Energized Ltd [2018] EWHC 652 (Ch) (28 March 2018)

EDF Energy Customers Ltd v Re-Energized Ltd [2018] EWHC 652 (Ch) (28 March 2018)

The District Judge's procedure was fair and in accordance with the rules; there was no procedural or substantive unfairness; the contract did not exclude the right to present a winding up petition; the debt was not genuinely disputed on substantial grounds; and no special procedural allowance was required for the litigant in person. The appeal is dismissed.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 652 (Ch)
Parties
Petitioning Creditor/respondent: EDF Energy Customers Ltd (formerly EDF Energy Customers plc); Debtor/appellant: Re-Energized Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Appeal (insolvency/winding Up) / Appeal From Order for Compulsory Winding Up
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Winding Up Petitions, Statutory Demand, Contractual Dispute Resolution, Litigants in Person, Procedural Fairness
Insolvency Contract Law Civil Procedure Winding Up Petitions Statutory Demand Contractual Dispute Resolution Litigants in Person Procedural Fairness

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

Parties

EDF Energy Customers Ltd (formerly EDF Energy Customers plc)

Petitioning Creditor/respondent

Re-Energized Ltd

Debtor/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (insolvency/winding Up) / Appeal From Order for Compulsory Winding Up

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the hearing before the District Judge was procedurally and substantively unfair to the debtor company
  2. 2 Whether the District Judge erred in refusing to consider arguments already determined at the injunction stage
  3. 3 Whether the contract excluded the right to present a winding up petition

Ratio Decidendi

The District Judge's procedure was fair and in accordance with the rules; there was no procedural or substantive unfairness; the contract did not exclude the right to present a winding up petition; the debt was not genuinely disputed on substantial grounds; and no special procedural allowance was required for the litigant in person. The appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The order for compulsory winding up stands
  • No special relief or rehearing granted