Fagg v Rushton

The security over the company property inured to the benefit of the debtor as guarantor and should be considered security for the purposes of section 383(2) of the Insolvency Act 1986. The entirety of the debt was covered by security, justifying the Deputy District Judge's decision to set aside the statutory demand.

Parties: Claimant/appellant: Alan Stephen Fagg; Defendant/respondent: Robert Francis Rushton
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 22 February 2007
Procedural Posture: Appeal / Judgment
Outcome: appeal dismissed
Legal Topics: Statutory Demand, Secured Debt, Guarantee, Costs Order

Insolvency Bankruptcy Statutory Demand Secured Debt Guarantee Costs Order

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4

Parties

Alan Stephen Fagg

Claimant/appellant

Robert Francis Rushton

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

1 Whether the security held over company property counts as security for the purposes of section 383(2) of the Insolvency Act 1986 in relation to the debt owed by the guarantor.
2 Whether the statutory demand should be set aside given the existence and value of the security.
3 Appropriate costs order following the application to set aside the statutory demand.

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

Deputy District Judge's order to set aside statutory demand upheld.
Order for costs below varied: Mr Fagg to receive payment of half his costs below, otherwise no order.