header-logo header-logo

24 May 2013
Issue: 7561 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Insolvency

Darbyshire v Turpin and another [2013] EWHC 954 (Ch), [2013] All ER (D) 161 (May)

The respondents served a statutory demand on the appellant. The appellant’s application to set aside the statutory demand was dismissed (the order). The order failed to specify a date on or after which the respondents could present a petition for a bankruptcy order to be made against the appellant. The respondents presented their petition the following day. A district judge adjudged the appellant to be bankrupt upon the petition presented by the respondents. The appellant appealed against the judge’s bankruptcy order.

The appellant submitted among other things that there had been an absence of any order by the judge under r 6.5(6) of the Insolvency Rules 1986 in that the order failed to specify a date on or after which the respondents could present a petition, and that, once an application was made to set aside a statutory demand, the creditor could not then present a petition. Second, that the district judge had been wrong to proceed to a substantive determination of the

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

Clyde & Co—Suriya Ashok

Clyde & Co—Suriya Ashok

Clyde Co strengthens energy transition and construction offering with hire of Suriya Ashok

Jurit—Nicole Gallop Mildon

Jurit—Nicole Gallop Mildon

Jurit appoints rare dual-qualified lawyer to expand Anglo-French private wealth expertise

NEWS
The Supreme Court has settled a long-running dispute over part-time workers: unfavourable treatment need be a significant or effective cause, not the sole cause
Arbitration may be private, but its confidentiality is no impenetrable shield. Writing in NLJ this week, James Glaysher of Kingsley Napley examines when courts will permit arbitral material to surface in open litigation
The Financial Reporting Council’s revised Audit Enforcement Procedure will alter the balance of power in corporate investigations
A telecoms operator may be able to hold over under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, yet still be unable to secure a renewal: an outcome described as a legal ‘paradox’

Safety fears do not automatically justify shutting an interested person out of a statutory will application

back-to-top-scroll