Jenna Louise Howe v Leck Holdings Limited

Jenna Louise Howe v Leck Holdings Limited

There is a close connection between the debt and the 1975 Act Claim, and it would be unjust to enforce the debt without regard to the pending claim. The 1975 Act Claim gives rise to a real prospect of an equitable set off equalling or exceeding the debt, justifying setting aside the statutory demand under Rule 10.5(5)(a).

Parties
Appellant: Jenna Louise Howe; Respondent: Leck Holdings Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 July 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Statutory Demand, Assignment of Debt, Equitable Set Off, Costs Orders, Inheritance (provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975
Civil Procedure Insolvency Wills and Probate Statutory Demand Assignment of Debt Equitable Set Off Costs Orders Inheritance (provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975

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

Parties

Jenna Louise Howe

Appellant

Leck Holdings Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether service of a statutory demand constitutes sufficient notice of assignment under section 136(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925
  2. 2 Whether the appellant has a counterclaim, set off or cross-demand under Rule 10.5(5)(a) of the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016 sufficient to set aside the statutory demand

Ratio Decidendi

There is a close connection between the debt and the 1975 Act Claim, and it would be unjust to enforce the debt without regard to the pending claim. The 1975 Act Claim gives rise to a real prospect of an equitable set off equalling or exceeding the debt, justifying setting aside the statutory demand under Rule 10.5(5)(a).

Court Disposition

appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed on ground 1 (notice of assignment)
  • Appeal allowed on ground 2 (equitable set off)