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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll