header-logo header-logo

Costly consequences

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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll