header-logo header-logo

Insolvency

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

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

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