header-logo header-logo

21 May 2015 / Elaine Palser
Issue: 7653 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Costs
printer mail-detail

Costly consequences

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 pay Y and Z’s costs. This is because 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

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll