header-logo header-logo

22 January 2010
Issue: 7401 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Insolvency

Shaw and another v MFP Foundations & Piling Ltd [2010] EWHC 9 (Ch), [2010] All ER (D) 71 (Jan)

(i) It was established law that if one of the conditions in r 6.5(4) of the Insolvency Rules 1986 (SI 1986/1925) was satisfied, the statutory demand would usually be set aside. That was because it would be unjust to require the principal debtor to face the consequences of bankruptcy if he appeared to have a counterclaim, set-off or cross demand.

(ii) The failure to litigate a cross claim was not fatal to a genuine cross claim defeating a winding-up petition. However, in deciding whether it was satisfied that the cross claim was genuine and serious, the court was entitled to take into account all the relevant circumstances. In corporate insolvency cases it was no longer a requirement that the company was unable to litigate its counterclaim; that was something which might be a relevant circumstance but it was not decisive. The law relating to corporate insolvency was not necessarily applicable to personal insolvency, where the Insolvency Act 1986 and 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

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

HFW—Simon Petch

HFW—Simon Petch

Global shipping practice expands with experienced ship finance partner hire

Freeths—Richard Lockhart

Freeths—Richard Lockhart

Infrastructure specialist joins as partner in Glasgow office

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll