Maud v Aabar Block S.A.R.L. & Anor

Maud v Aabar Block S.A.R.L. & Anor

There is no substantial dispute that the judgment debt is due, as the September 2011 arrangements did not extinguish the debt, and the statutory demand is not an abuse of process even if the Respondents' motive is to trigger pre-emption rights; the demand is properly served for debt recovery.

Parties
Applicant: Glenn Maud; First Respondent: Aabar Block S.A.R.L.; Second Respondent: Edgeworth Capital (Luxembourg) S.A.R.L.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 June 2015
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy / Application to Set Aside Statutory Demand
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Statutory Demand, Joint and Several Liability, Abuse of Process, Collateral Purpose, Debt Satisfaction
Insolvency Bankruptcy Statutory Demand Joint and Several Liability Abuse of Process Collateral Purpose Debt Satisfaction

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

Parties

Glenn Maud

Applicant

Aabar Block S.A.R.L.

First Respondent

Edgeworth Capital (Luxembourg) S.A.R.L.

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Bankruptcy / Application to Set Aside Statutory Demand

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judgment debt has been extinguished by prior arrangements
  2. 2 Whether the statutory demand is an abuse of process due to collateral purpose

Ratio Decidendi

There is no substantial dispute that the judgment debt is due, as the September 2011 arrangements did not extinguish the debt, and the statutory demand is not an abuse of process even if the Respondents' motive is to trigger pre-emption rights; the demand is properly served for debt recovery.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The application to set aside the statutory demand is dismissed.