All your resources at your fingertips.Learn More
I and three others personally, jointly and severally guaranteed the liabilities of a company to UTB. UTB sued I under the guarantee, and I joined the other guarantors under CPR Part 20. After obtaining judgment by consent against I and a charging order over I's home, UTB served a statutory demand on him. Vos J dismissed I's appeal against the refusal to set aside the statutory demand. The fact that I might have claims against the other guarantors in relation to the guarantee was not a good enough reason to set it aside, especially as the sum he might recover would only cover 75% of the debt to UTB. The district judge had been correct to ignore the fact of the charging order because that did not exhaust the debt, and nor was the court obliged to take into account other security held over the company's property.
"BPIR is an excellent series, of interest to both corporate and personal insolvency lawyers,...