This is the next in the series of blogs for the Directors Friend blog.
In the recent case of Mullaley and Company Limited and (1) Regent Building Services Limited (2) Christopher White  EWHC 2962 (Ch) heard by David Stone sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge considered (amongst other issues) an application for injunctions to prevent the presentation of a winding up petition.
The company Mullaley & Co. Limited (the ‘Company’) by way of opposing a Statutory Demand issued by Regent / Mr White brought the proceedings due to the threat to wind it up made by the same.
That was in circumstances where Regent Building Services Limited (‘Regent’) / Mr White chose not to use the option to pursue a contested debt in the usual way under Part 7, rather than using the Statutory Demand procedure for uncontested debts.
Responding to a Statutory Demand by a company
In the Directors Friend earlier blog this area of law was explained briefly. Essentially an application should be made to Court within 18 days of service of the Statutory Demand (if, in the meantime it is not withdrawn). The application should set out the detail of why the debt is disputed or there is a cross claim. This should be put across in good faith and has sufficient substance to justify it being determined in a normal civil action.
The debt in this case was disputed by the Company on the basis that (at paragraph 14) that:
- The debt was not assignable without the Company’s consent, which it has never given;
- Some of the amounts that made up the debt had been paid, or were not at that stage due; and
- The Company contested the ability of Regent / Mr White to claim the debt on behalf of the (alleged) assignor.
Correspondence between the parties had elicited 3 different copies of an Asset Purchase Agreement (‘APA’) all of which were subject to criticism for various reasons.
A winding up petition was presented against the alleged Assignor and any APA post that date would have been void under section 127 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (discussed here). In any event a third party had a fixed and floating charge over the assets of the Assignor (paragraph 16).
The judge set out that the:
- Courts power to grant an injunction in these circumstances stems from its jurisdiction to prevent an abuse of process (per paragraph 41);
- Court does have to go into the argument sufficiently to be able to form a view about whether the dispute to the debt or the cross-claim put forward in good faith and has sufficient substance to justify it being determined in a normal civil action (per paragraph 42);
- Threshold for establishing that a debt is disputed on substantial grounds in the context of a winding up petition is not a high one for restraining the presentation of the winding up-petition (per paragraph 43); and
- Hurdle is a low one. Winding up procedure should not be pursued on the basis of a debt which is disputed in good faith, and where that dispute is of sufficient substance to warrant determination in the usual way (per paragraph 44).
The judge found at paragraph 51 that:
‘… any of these three disputes on its own would have been sufficient to grant an injunction to restrain Regent/Mr White from presenting a winding up petition against Mulalley. Together they are compelling.’
The injunctions were granted.
Unfortunately for Mr White it was found that his conduct was unreasonable and an order for indemnity costs was made against Regent and him. That is payment of costs in full!
The Directors Friend comments
It is telling that the ‘Agent’ as stated by the judge at paragraph 49(b) in all of the APA’s was Rigil Kent Corporate Rescue Limited now Rigil Kent Corporate Acquisitions and Turnaround Limited. This company was placed into Provisional Liquidation on 19 December 2017 and compulsorily wound up on 28 February 2018. The Insolvency Service press release dated 08 January 2018 is here.
The press release states:
‘All of the companies were part of a scheme and business model which purported to provide advice and business recovery services to directors of insolvent companies.’
Whist Regent / Mr White did have the benefit of legal advice at an earlier stage of the case it is notable to see the ‘Rigil’ name here.
It was also unsurprising that in the circumstances that the injunctions were granted where the threshold is not a high one.
Therefore, the lessons for a well-advised director would be:
- Obtain the right professional advice at the right time from a regulated firm;
- Make sure that in attempting to collect a debt that you / the company use the right process to do so; and
- Make sure that your conduct as a director in litigation with driving the actions of the company is not unreasonable or that director may be at risk of personal liability for costs.
WHAT TO DO NOW
If you are faced with:
- worrying insolvency issues with your company;
- a claim against you for misfeasance / breaching your duties as a director to a company or any claim for personal liability; and / or
- director disqualification
then please talk to me today on +44 (0)1992 558411. That is in order to protect your position without delay. The earlier that you speak with me the more that I can likely help.
Until the next time…
THE DIRECTORS FRIEND