AFP Assets Limited v Rachael Hugill, Robin Hugill and R & R Hugill (a partnership)

AFP Assets Limited v Rachael Hugill, Robin Hugill and R & R Hugill (a partnership)

District Judge erred by failing to consider events of default under clauses 23.1(c) and (o), misapplied burden of proof regarding evidence for breach of clause 18, and wrongly required compliance with all formalities of clause 18; appeal allowed and statutory demands reinstated.

Parties
Appellant: AFP Assets Limited; Respondent: Rachael Hugill; Respondent: Robin Hugill; Respondent: R & R Hugill (A Partnership)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 October 2025
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From County Court Decision Setting Aside Statutory Demands
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Statutory Demand, Events of Default, Termination of Contract, Burden of Proof, Summary Judgment Principles
Insolvency Contract Law Statutory Demand Events of Default Termination of Contract Burden of Proof Summary Judgment Principles

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AFP Assets Limited

Appellant

Rachael Hugill

Respondent

Robin Hugill

Respondent

R & R Hugill (A Partnership)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From County Court Decision Setting Aside Statutory Demands

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether District Judge wrongly excluded consideration of events of default under clauses 23.1(c) and (o)
  2. 2 Whether District Judge failed to apply correct legal test and burden regarding absence of evidence
  3. 3 Whether there was a genuine triable issue as to breach of clause 18 of the Agreement

Ratio Decidendi

District Judge erred by failing to consider events of default under clauses 23.1(c) and (o), misapplied burden of proof regarding evidence for breach of clause 18, and wrongly required compliance with all formalities of clause 18; appeal allowed and statutory demands reinstated.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Statutory demands reinstated
  • District Judge's order set aside