Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd v Emmott & Ors [2024] EWHC 449 (Comm) (07 February 2024)

Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd v Emmott & Ors [2024] EWHC 449 (Comm) (07 February 2024)

The court refused to strike out or summarily dismiss the set-off application because there were substantial factual and legal disputes regarding the effect of assignments, the amount of the judgment debt, and the entitlement to set-off, which could not be resolved without a substantive hearing. The debarring order was premature pending resolution of the set-off and related statutory demand applications.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 449 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Michael Wilson & Partners Limited; Defendant: John Forster Emmott
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 February 2024
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Application / Interlocutory Applications (strike Out and Debarring Order)
Outcome
Strike-out application dismissed; no order on debarring application; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
Set Off, Costs Orders, Assignment of Debt, Enforcement of Arbitral Awards, Debarring Orders
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Arbitration Set Off Costs Orders Assignment of Debt Enforcement of Arbitral Awards Debarring Orders

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

Parties

Michael Wilson & Partners Limited

Claimant

John Forster Emmott

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Application / Interlocutory Applications (strike Out and Debarring Order)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant is entitled to set off costs orders against a judgment debt arising from an arbitral award
  2. 2 Whether the claimant's application to strike out the set-off application should be granted
  3. 3 Whether a debarring order should be made against the defendant for non-payment of costs

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused to strike out or summarily dismiss the set-off application because there were substantial factual and legal disputes regarding the effect of assignments, the amount of the judgment debt, and the entitlement to set-off, which could not be resolved without a substantive hearing. The debarring order was premature pending resolution of the set-off and related statutory demand applications.

Court Disposition

Strike-out application dismissed; no order on debarring application; costs reserved.

Orders

  • Set-off application to be listed for attended hearing in London.
  • No order on strike-out application.