Barker v Baxendale-Walker

Barker v Baxendale-Walker

The respondent's cross-claim is an abuse of process and not genuine or serious, as it should have been raised in the original proceedings and lacks legal foundation. An application for permission to appeal does not amount to a pending appeal under rule 10.24(2) of the Insolvency Rules 2016. There is no credible evidence that the petition debt will be paid within a reasonable time, and the respondent admits inability to pay. The petitioner is entitled to a bankruptcy order.

Parties
Petitioner: Iain Paul Barker; Respondent: Paul Baxendale-Walker
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy Petition / Final Hearing and Determination of Petition
Outcome
Bankruptcy order made against the respondent
Legal Topics
Bankruptcy Petition, Statutory Demand, Cross Claim, Abuse of Process, Stay of Proceedings, Permission to Appeal, Duty of Care, Res Judicata
Insolvency Bankruptcy Civil Procedure Bankruptcy Petition Statutory Demand Cross Claim Abuse of Process Stay of Proceedings +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 5 Authorities cited 27 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Iain Paul Barker

Petitioner

Paul Baxendale-Walker

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Bankruptcy Petition / Final Hearing and Determination of Petition

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's cross-claim is genuine and substantial or an abuse of process
  2. 2 Whether the existence of an application for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court constitutes a 'pending appeal' under rule 10.24(2) of the Insolvency Rules 2016
  3. 3 Whether the court should exercise its discretion to stay or dismiss the bankruptcy petition

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent's cross-claim is an abuse of process and not genuine or serious, as it should have been raised in the original proceedings and lacks legal foundation. An application for permission to appeal does not amount to a pending appeal under rule 10.24(2) of the Insolvency Rules 2016. There is no credible evidence that the petition debt will be paid within a reasonable time, and the respondent admits inability to pay. The petitioner is entitled to a bankruptcy order.

Court Disposition

Bankruptcy order made against the respondent

Orders

  • Bankruptcy order issued against Paul Baxendale-Walker
  • No stay or adjournment granted