6 Aug 2010
LINDALE KIDS LIMITED V LINDALE INVESTMENTS LIMITED HC WN CIV-2010-485-899
- Citation
- openlaw-592cda5d_3fde_497d_a90f_9bc6e2184447.pdf
- Court
- High Court
The statutory demands were set aside because, although the applicants did not establish a sufficiently arguable dispute solely as to the quantum of rent, they had established reasonably arguable counterclaims/cross demands predating the demands which warranted setting aside under s 290(4)(b); lease clauses excluding setoff did not preclude reliance on s 290 counterclaims and the court should not refuse relief in its residual discretion.