CR-2023-007112 - [2024] EWHC 1070 (Ch)

There have been indications from the Respondent that it considers that this application is an abuse of process, particularly given the haste with which it was brought and in the absence of a formal statutory demand. I have read the relevant correspondence and considered the timings.

There was a short flurry of correspondence commencing in June 2022. A draft statutory demand was delivered to the Applicant. The Applicant responded on 30.6.2022 stating that it did not accept that the Lebanese judgment gave rise to an enforceable debt in England. A further detailed letter was sent on 19.7.2022 setting out the Applicant’s objections to the Lebanese judgment. The Respondent replied to the 30.6.2022 letter on the same day, 19.7.2022 and then a response to the 19.7.2022 letter on 3.8.2022.

The Applicant responded on 23.8.2022 setting out its position in respect of the Lebanese judgment debt and English law at some length, with the Respondent replying on 14.9.2022 setting out its position, also at some length and repeating a request for payment.

On 23.9.2022 the Applicant informed the Respondent that a payment had been deposited by way of banker’s check “in connection with the judgment debt”. I pause to say that this looks very much like a direct open acknowledgement of the debt in writing and is within a six year window from the date of the last Lebanese judgment.

The Respondent replied on 1.10.2022, setting out the currency crisis in Lebanon, the loss of value of the currency and the closing of Lebanese banks on the grounds of security and the failure to state how much had allegedly been paid. On 12.10.2022 the Applicant wrote to say that the judgment debt had been paid in dollars. There was a further lengthy reply on 25.11.2022 by the Respondent which did not take things forward very much, but which repeated the request for payment. The Applicant responded on 15.12.2022 repeating its assertion that the debt had been paid in Lebanon, and expressed its a refusal to make any further payment.

There was no further correspondence at that stage. The Respondent objected to the lodging of the cheque on the grounds that any payment was inadequate and unacceptable and things went quiet as this made its way through the Lebanese system.

It appears that there was some form of stay placed on enforcement in Lebanon in April 2023 which came to an end when the Lebanese Court determined the objection.

The decision of the Lebanese Court that the payment in Lebanon was not acceptable was handed down on 16.10.2023. The Respondent wrote on 20.11.2023 enclosing a free translation of the 16.10.2023 judgment and seeking payment. The Applicant responded on 22.11.2023 expressing surprise and saying that it would take appropriate steps to restrain presentation. On 29.11.2023 the Respondent wrote back, providing a formal translation of the 16.10.2023 judgment, pointing out that the hiatus had been occasioned by the need to deal with the banker’s cheque payment and giving a shortened deadline to comply with payments. On 6.12.2023 the Applicant responded by stating that the cheque had been provided and that the time for appeal had not passed. A number of other challenges were posited, including jurisdictional challenges, but these were not raised in this application. The Applicant sought an undertaking that no statutory demand or petition would be presented by 13.12.2023, in default of which this application would be made.

The application was made on 18.12.2023, at which time there had been no response from the Respondent. The Respondent reacted to this and, after further correspondence, the parties agreed to adjourn the hearing originally listed in December 2023.

The position of the Respondent is that there is no statutory demand and therefore no need for an application. In fact, there is no necessity for a statutory demand before issuing a winding-up petition and there had been some significant and fairly aggressive assertions of the existence of the Lebanese judgment debt. The lack of response to the letter dated 13.12.2023, whilst apparently not deliberate, would reasonably cause concern, particularly given the difficulties of getting into Court during the Christmas Vacation.

Although possibly a little precipitate, it seems to me that getting the arguments before the court was inevitable and that there would have been little point in continuing with what had become a sterile and repetitive argument. Neither side was going to concede its points. The bringing of this application is not an abuse of process.