Although service of a statutory demand or winding-up petition on a company is a blunt and unsophisticated debt recovery tool, it will often have the desired effect for a creditor as they are seldom ignored and ignored only at the company's peril. It can often prompt payment of the sum due, or judgment owed, where previously there has been prevarication and empty promises of payment.

Here is a reminder of some important issues a (solvent) company should consider if a statutory demand or petition is served upon it.

Doing nothing is not an option

In recent years it appears to have become a common trend for distressed homeowners to publish voluntary surrender notices as a stratagem to stay execution proceedings instituted by creditors. We have also witnessed an increase in institutions approaching distressed homeowners following publication of a notice of sale in execution, purporting to be in the business of assisting distressed homeowners by guarding their homes from sales in execution by the sheriffs of the high courts.

His Honour Judge Purle QC in Re Cornercare Limited [2010] EWHC 393 (CH) has clarified English law on the filing of successive notices of intention to appoint administrators. He has held that there is nothing in the relevant provisions of the Insolvency Act 1986 ("IA 1986") to prevent the filing of successive notices of intention to appoint administrators, where the original notice of intention to appoint an administrator had not been acted upon for good reason.

In 2008, Harvey, an experienced businessman, guaranteed a debt owed to Dunbar Assets plc (Dunbar).  Dunbar subsequently served a statutory demand on Harvey in 2011 for payment under the guarantee.

In 2012, Harvey applied, unsuccessfully, to set aside the demand in the County Court on the ground of promissory estoppel.  However, the demand was subsequently set aside by the Court of Appeal on a completely unrelated ground.

In Dench v Gates, the New Zealand High Court considered its inherent jurisdiction to set aside a bankruptcy notice to prevent an abuse of process. Mrs Gates, the judgment debtor, had applied to the High Court to set aside a bankruptcy notice. The bankruptcy notice was based on an award of costs against Mrs Gates in respect of earlier District Court litigation initiated by her against Mr Dench, a solicitor, on the basis that he had conducted himself dishonestly while representing his client in a separate matter, in which Mrs Gates was the plaintiff.

This week’s TGIF considers the recent case of In the matter of Newheadspace Pty Limited (in liq) [2020] NSWSC 173, where the Supreme Court of New South Wales set aside a liquidator’s examination summonses on the grounds of an abuse of process and failure to satisfy s 596B of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

What happened?

In the matter ofMustang Marine Australia Services Pty Ltd [2014] NSWSC 1074, Brereton J of the New South Wales Supreme Court held that there is no principle that before instituting proceedings a liquidator must be satisfied of the material facts that constitute its cause of action, and that absent such satisfaction the proceedings are an abuse of process. As long as proceedings are instituted for bona fide relief claimed and are not doomed then there is no abuse of process.

FACTS

The Masri litigation has yet again troubled the English Court on the principle of comity and provided the Court of Appeal with the opportunity to say just how important it is in international debt enforcement.

The background on Masri