All your resources at your fingertips.Learn More
A bank provided on-demand finance to a company, the liability secured on a property and guaranteed by C and B, directors and shareholders of the company. The bank went into administration, receivers of the property were appointed and the property was sold. The indebtedness to the bank was not fully discharged by the sale, so it served statutory demands on C and B for the balance, followed by the presentation of bankruptcy petitions after unsuccessful applications to set aside the demands. C and B sought to defend the petitions on the basis that they had various causes of action against the administrators, such that settlement negotiations should be recommenced. Arnold J dismissed C and B's arguments. Many of the proposed causes of action against the administrators were either the same as, or very similar to, those dismissed in previous litigation. The bank had been entitled to make the demand under the guarantees. None of the proposed cross-claims raised a genuinely triable issue. Any claim against the administrators could not give rise to a defence to the bank's claim under the guarantee.
"This is the ultimate statement of where the law on IVAs is to be found in our great common law...