Bridger & Co Ltd v Specialist Lending Ltd (t/a Duologi) [2023] EWHC 2562 (Ch) (10 October 2023)

Bridger & Co Ltd v Specialist Lending Ltd (t/a Duologi) [2023] EWHC 2562 (Ch) (10 October 2023)

None of the grounds advanced by the applicant—misrepresentation, implied terms, frustration, agency, repudiation, force majeure, or abuse of process—disclose a substantial dispute as to the petition debt. The DFA expressly provides for repayment by the company after 24 months, and the applicant's arguments are inconsistent with the contract's express terms. The existence of security does not preclude the respondent from presenting a winding up petition.

Citation
[2023] EWHC 2562 (Ch)
Parties
Applicant/debtor: Bridger & Co Limited; Respondent/petitioner: Specialist Lending Limited (T/A Duologi)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 October 2023
Procedural Posture
Insolvency Application (injunction to Restrain Advertisement of Winding Up Petition) / Application for Interim Injunction Prior to Hearing of Winding Up Petition
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Winding Up Petitions, Injunctions, Misrepresentation, Implied Terms, Frustration, Agency, Repudiation, Force Majeure, Abuse of Process, Secured Creditor Rights
Insolvency Contract Winding Up Petitions Injunctions Misrepresentation Implied Terms Frustration Agency +4 more

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

Parties

Bridger & Co Limited

Applicant/debtor

Specialist Lending Limited (T/A Duologi)

Respondent/petitioner

Procedural Posture

Insolvency Application (injunction to Restrain Advertisement of Winding Up Petition) / Application for Interim Injunction Prior to Hearing of Winding Up Petition

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a substantial dispute as to the petition debt justifying an injunction restraining advertisement of the winding up petition
  2. 2 Whether alleged misrepresentation, implied terms, frustration, agency, repudiation, force majeure, or abuse of process provide a defence to the petition debt
  3. 3 Whether a secured creditor may present a winding up petition

Ratio Decidendi

None of the grounds advanced by the applicant—misrepresentation, implied terms, frustration, agency, repudiation, force majeure, or abuse of process—disclose a substantial dispute as to the petition debt. The DFA expressly provides for repayment by the company after 24 months, and the applicant's arguments are inconsistent with the contract's express terms. The existence of security does not preclude the respondent from presenting a winding up petition.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Injunction to restrain advertisement of winding up petition refused
  • Directions to be sought for progress of the petition