Basic Principles
Basic Principles
The basic principles of an application for an injunction to restrain presentation of a winding up petition are not in doubt and I bear firmly in mind the principles in Re Tallington Lakes Ltd v South Kesteven District Council [2012] EWCA Civ 443, Argyle Crescent Limited v Definite Finance Co Limited [2004] EWHC 3422 (Ch) and Angel Group v. British Gas Trading [2013] B.C.C. 265. In short, a debt must be disputed on grounds which have substance.
My attention was also drawn to Applications to Wind Up Companies, 2.166, 7.344-7.345, 7.45, 7.39, 7.257, 7.263, relied upon by Mr Willson, which I have also found useful.
I bear in mind that I do not have to make a final determination of the issues but to assess whether or not there is a substantial dispute of a nature of which the result may be that the Lebanese judgment cannot be relied upon to found a winding up petition.
The issues were set out differently by each party and evolved somewhat during the hearing. A mild claim that the application was not properly brought effectively dissolved in the light of day, although it may raise its head again in respect of costs.
- Heading
- Introduction
- Basic Principles
- The Background
- Reasons for restraining Presentation
- Limitation point
- What Limitation Regime applies to a foreign judgment?
- The statutory regime
- The Administration of Justice Act 1920 (“ the 1920 Act ”)
- Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933 (“ the 1933 Act ”)
- The Common Law Regime
- Status of unregistered/unrecognised foreign Judgment
- Limitation
- Acknowledgement
- Satisfaction
- Stay
- Abuse of Process
- Conclusions
![CR-2023-007112 - [2024] EWHC 1070 (Ch)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_O3rEzCI.png)