From the County Courts – deposits, evictions and introductory tenancies – Nearly Legal

‘Some county court cases reported in the indispensable ‘Housing: Recent Developments’ in Legal Action for May 2016. Cases involve introductory tenancies, deposits, harassment and illegal eviction.’

Full story

Nearly Legal, 12th June 2016

Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk

Clarke and another v Cognita Schools Ltd (trading as Hydesville Tower School) – WLR Daily

Clarke and another v Cognita Schools Ltd (trading as Hydesville Tower School) [2015] EWHC 932 (Ch); [2015] WLR (D) 164

‘CPR r 3.3(5) did not apply to orders made under rule 6.5(1) of the Insolvency Rules 1986. Therefore an order under rule 6.5(1) did not have to state that the debtor could apply to have it set aside, varied or stayed.’

WLR Daily, 1st April 2015

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Avonwick Holdings Ltd v Webinvest Ltd and another – WLR Daily

Avonwick Holdings Ltd v Webinvest Ltd and another: [2014] EWHC 3322 (Ch); [2014] WLR (D) 424

‘Communications made at a time when there was no dispute could not, with retrospective effect, be made subject to the without prejudice privilege by subsequently rasing a dispute.

WLR Daily, 10th October 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

White v Davenham Trust Ltd – WLR Daily

Posted July 1st, 2011 in bankruptcy, debts, guarantees, law reports, statutory demands, surety by tracey

White v Davenham Trust Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 747;  [2011] WLR (D)  212

“A guarantor of a debt could not set aside a statutory demand served by a creditor where the creditor had security over the assets of the principal debtor, and so could not serve a statutory demand on the principal debtor because of rule 6.5(4)(c) of the Insolvency Rules 1986, but had the benefit of an unsecured debt owed by the guarantor.”

WLR Daily, 28th June 2011

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Octagon Assets Ltd v Remblance and Another – Times Law Reports

Posted July 27th, 2009 in bankruptcy, debts, law reports, rent, statutory demands by sally

Octagon Assets Ltd v Remblance and Another

Court of Appeal

“Where rent arrears were sought from both a corporate tenant and a guarantor it was ostensibly unjust to decline to set aside a statutory demand obtained against the guarantor mrerly because he could afford to pay the debt; if a statutory demand would not be sustained against the principal debtor it was also unjust to treat the guarantor differently.”

The Times, 27th July 2009

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

Octagon v Remblance and another – WLR Daily

Posted June 19th, 2009 in bankruptcy, debts, law reports, rent, statutory demands by sally

Octagon v Remblance and another [2009] EWCA Civ 581; [2009] WLR (D) 196

“In a case in which a corporate tenant and a guarantor were pursued for rent arrears, it was difficult to see how it could be just not to set aside a statutory demand obtained against the guarantor where the principal debtor satisfied one of the conditions in r 6.5(4)(a) of the Insolvency Rules 1986, merely because the guarantor could afford to pay the debt. Moreover, where the tenant’s and guarantor’s liability were co-extensive and there were no good reasons for distinguishing between the position of the guarantor and that which would obtain if the tenant applied under r 6.5(4)(a) to set aside a statutory demand, justice and r 6.5(4)(d) of the 1986 Rules demanded that a statutory demand obtained against the guarantor should be set aside.”

WLR Daily, 18th June 2009

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.