28 Oct 2008
MH BENNETT V HW PRESTON AND ANOR HC PMN CIV 2007-454-856
- Citation
- openlaw-bd1d7e8e_906a_4fe1_b04a_634948e9fc5d.pdf
- Court
- High Court
The Court held that Deane Preston has a genuine triable cross-demand under s60 PLA that could not have been raised in the 2001 proceedings because the relevant facts emerged from the liquidator's subsequent investigations, the alleged transfers to Viking were at undervalue and posed a practical risk to contingent creditors, and there is sufficient mutuality with the costs judgment; accordingly the bankruptcy notice against Deane was set aside under s19(1)(d). For Haddon Preston s19(1)(d) did not assist because he could not rely on Deane's claim by indemnity to avoid the judgment debt, but the…
- Bankruptcy notice
- Set aside
- Alienation with intent to defraud (s60 pla)
- Counterclaim/set-off/cross-demand (s19(1)(d) insolvency act 1967)
- Inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process
- Costs orders