Knight v ABV Recycling Ltd
2014
CHANCERY DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
- MR JUSTICE NUGEE
Areas of Law
- Debt Recovery Law
- Contract Law
- Civil Procedure
2014
CHANCERY DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Mr. Knight appealed the decision of District Judge Cross which denied his request to set aside a statutory demand issued by APS Recycling Ltd. The demand was based on a personal guarantee for Vast Group Plc's debts. The court found no substantial grounds for disputing the guarantee or the debt and dismissed the appeal.
Judgment
MR JUSTICE NUGEE: I have before me an appeal against the decision of District Judge Cross sitting in the St Albans County Court, dated 18 November 2013, in which he dismissed an application by Mr Knight, the appellant, for an order that a statutory demand issued by APS Recycling Limited, the respondent, be set aside.
The statutory demand is based on a personal guarantee said to have been given by Mr Knight for the debts of a company of which he was a director, namely Vast Group Holdings Plc, in respect of various services supplied by APS in the shape of provision of skips for taking away waste and for tipping of waste at one of their depots. The total sum claimed was some £4,200. The District Judge found in his brief judgment on 18 November that there was no genuine dispute on grounds which have any substance.
The jurisdiction which was invoked was that in rule 6.5 of the Insolvency Rules 1986 and under rule 6.5(4) the court may grant an application under rule 6.4, which is an application for an order setting a statutory demand aside, if (a) the debtor appears to have a counterclaim, set-off or cross demand (that does not apply); or (b) the debt is disputed on grounds which appear to the court to be substantial. (c) deals with security, and that does not apply, and (d) deals with the court being satisfied, on other grounds, that the demand ought to be set aside. In the present case, the only ground which is really in play is 6.5(4)(b), namely where the debt is disputed on grounds which appear to the court to be substantial.
There are in effect two questions: one is was there a genuine dispute on substantial grounds as to whether Mr Knight had signed the personal guarantee which was relied upon by APS and the other being whether there was a genuine dispute on substantial grounds that the company, Vast Group, owed the monies claimed on the invoices.
I will deal first with the question of the guarantee. APS' case is very straightforward. The story starts sometime in August 2012, when Mr Knight accepts that he signed as director on behalf of Vast a form called a credit application form. This asked for credit of £2,000. It said that the persons authorised to place orders were he himself, his position being given as director, and a S Tillier, whose position is given as site manager. He ticked the box for written orders and order numbers required, did not tick the box for verbal orders, and he sent that off to APS.
APS' documents show that on 20 Au