header-logo header-logo

21 May 2015 / Elaine Palser
Issue: 7653 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Costs
printer mail-detail

Costly consequences

nlj_7653_palser

Who bears the costs of statutory demands, asks Elaine Palser

This article considers the cost consequences following service of a statutory demand in two scenarios:

  1. X serves a statutory demand on Y (an individual). Y applies to set aside the statutory demand. Upon seeing the application and evidence in support, X withdraws the statutory demand.
  2. X serves a statutory demand on Z (a company). Z applies to restrain presentation of a winding-up petition. Upon seeing the application and evidence in support, X gives an undertaking not to present a winding-up petition.

Creditor takes the risk

While scenarios (a) and (b) are common scenarios, awareness of the authorities governing the costs consequences seems to be less so. Often X will assert that Y and Z should bear X’s costs—or that there should be no order as to costs— because X simply did not know that there was any potential defence until seeing the evidence. The invariable outcome though is that X will have to

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Harneys—Maggie Kwok & George Weston

Harneys—Maggie Kwok & George Weston

Harneys senior leadership appointments

Freeths—Keith Browne & Jim Jordan

Freeths—Keith Browne & Jim Jordan

Freeths strengthens London Construction and Engineering practice with two strategic senior hires

Anthony Collins—Laura Moss

Anthony Collins—Laura Moss

Anthony Collins announces strategic hire to deepen skills base in the social business sector

NEWS
More than 100 teams from the legal and financial services sectors competed in five sports at the 51st Law Society RFC Festival of Sport earlier this month
Part-time status need only be an effective cause of less favourable treatment, rather than the sole cause, the Supreme Court has held in Augustine v Data Cars
Britain’s new acknowledgement that Israel’s occupation is unlawful, and accompanying settlement-goods ban and sanctions, is significant but overdue, argue Danny Friedman KC and Victor Kattan in NLJ this week
New planning fee rises, wider trade union access rights and a service-by-email trap feature in Stephen Gold’s latest Civil Way
Existing defamation law can respond to AI ‘hallucinations’, but allocating responsibility will prove harder where outputs reach users without human intervention
back-to-top-scroll