A purported debtor issued an application to set aside, effectively, two statutory demands that had been served on him in the UK and Dubai. The applicant contended that the alleged guarantee debt was disputed.
The applicant also acknowledged that previous first instance authorities had decided that jurisdiction was not a ground on which a statutory demand could be set aside.
However, as his position was that his COMI was outside the UK, the applicant asked the court, if it was not prepared to set aside the statutory demand on the dispute, to stay the set aside application.
The deputy ICCJ considered the line of authorities on the question of jurisdiction, and suggested that the proper approach of applicants, seeking to object to the presentation of a bankruptcy petition on the grounds of jurisdiction, is to apply for an injunction against presentation of a bankruptcy petition. This should be done in conjunction with an application to set aside the statutory demand, if the applicant also disputed the debt and/or had a counterclaim.
The deputy ICCJ went on to consider the application on the grounds of dispute and concluded that there was a genuine dispute on the substance of, and background to, the guarantee.
This therefore made the jurisdictional point academic, but, having set out the above guidance, the deputy ICCJ explained that, if the application had failed, he would have been minded to allow the applicant a short time to apply for an injunction, before the respondent had the opportunity to present a winding-up petition.
Hopefully this guidance will be followed by the court going forward, giving some clarity as to how to approach jurisdictional challenges on service of a statutory demand.
Peretie v Eden Farm SRL [2025] EWHC 1349 (Ch)
Our content explained
Every piece of content we create is correct on the date it’s published but please don’t rely on it as legal advice. If you’d like to speak to us about your own legal requirements, please contact one of our expert lawyers.