Dunhill v Hughmans (a firm)

Dunhill v Hughmans (a firm)

The respondent acted unreasonably in serving the statutory demand before the outcome of the oral renewal application for permission to appeal, causing unnecessary costs. The appellant had a counterclaim exceeding the debt and achieved the result sought. The court below failed to properly weigh the reasonableness of the respondent’s conduct and the appellant’s offer to reserve costs. The appellant is entitled to costs of the set-aside application.

Parties
Appellant: Alexandra Dunhill; Respondent: Hughmans (a firm)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Costs Order Following Application to Set Aside Statutory Demand
Outcome
Appeal allowed; permission to appeal granted
Legal Topics
Statutory Demand, Set Aside Application, Costs Discretion, Counterclaim, Stay of Execution
Civil Procedure Insolvency Costs Statutory Demand Set Aside Application Costs Discretion Counterclaim Stay of Execution

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alexandra Dunhill

Appellant

Hughmans (a firm)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Costs Order Following Application to Set Aside Statutory Demand

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant should be awarded costs of her application to set aside a statutory demand served by the respondent
  2. 2 Whether the respondent acted reasonably in serving the statutory demand and in its conduct thereafter
  3. 3 Whether the appellant had a counterclaim exceeding the debt

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent acted unreasonably in serving the statutory demand before the outcome of the oral renewal application for permission to appeal, causing unnecessary costs. The appellant had a counterclaim exceeding the debt and achieved the result sought. The court below failed to properly weigh the reasonableness of the respondent’s conduct and the appellant’s offer to reserve costs. The appellant is entitled to costs of the set-aside application.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; permission to appeal granted

Orders

  • Appellant awarded costs of her application to set aside the statutory demand
  • Parties invited to agree an order reflecting the judgment