Wagner v White [2018] EWHC 2882 (Ch) (31 October 2018)

Wagner v White [2018] EWHC 2882 (Ch) (31 October 2018)

There was no genuine triable issue that Mr White caused or materially contributed to Powa's administration or that any restructuring was a viable alternative absent substantial new equity; thus, neither the Patel principle nor the co-extensiveness principle provided a defence to the statutory demand. The Deputy Registrar was correct to refuse to set aside the statutory demands.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 2882 (Ch)
Parties
Applicant and Appellant: Daniel Maurice Wagner; Respondent: Benjamin Vincent St John White; Respondent (statutory Demand, Not Separately Argued on Appeal): Stuart Roden
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Chancery Appeal / Appeal Against Order Refusing to Set Aside Statutory Demands
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Statutory Demand, Personal Guarantee, Suretyship, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Unlawful Means Conspiracy, Event of Default, Administration, Summary Judgment Standard
Insolvency Law Contract Law Company Law Statutory Demand Personal Guarantee Suretyship Breach of Fiduciary Duty Unlawful Means Conspiracy +3 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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daniel Maurice Wagner

Applicant and Appellant

Benjamin Vincent St John White

Respondent

Stuart Roden

Respondent (statutory Demand, Not Separately Argued on Appeal)

Procedural Posture

Chancery Appeal / Appeal Against Order Refusing to Set Aside Statutory Demands

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a genuine triable issue to set aside statutory demands based on alleged creditor misconduct or breach of fiduciary duty
  2. 2 Whether the creditor caused or materially contributed to the principal debtor's default
  3. 3 Whether the co-extensiveness principle applies to allow the surety to rely on the principal debtor's cross-claim against the creditor

Ratio Decidendi

There was no genuine triable issue that Mr White caused or materially contributed to Powa's administration or that any restructuring was a viable alternative absent substantial new equity; thus, neither the Patel principle nor the co-extensiveness principle provided a defence to the statutory demand. The Deputy Registrar was correct to refuse to set aside the statutory demands.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Mr Wagner's appeal against the statutory demand of Mr White is dismissed.
  • Mr Wagner's appeal against the statutory demand of Mr Roden is dismissed.