Conclusions
Conclusion
There is no substantial dispute of a nature which requires evidence or hearing. There is no limitation defence available to the Applicant for the reasons set out above. There is no necessity to obtain an English judgment to found a winding up Petition. The debt is incontrovertibly owed. There has not been satisfaction of the debt. The failure to pay the debt is of itself an act of insolvency, so the underlying solvency of the Applicant is not relevant to my considerations.
The possibility of the appeal in Lebanon against the refusal of the court to accept that the payment is valid being successful is, however, just about a live issue. There is no real information relating to the appeal. If it fails, then there is simply no reason to grant an injunction. There is a debt clearly due and it has not been paid. If it succeeds, there remain issues about interest and costs which have not been paid and which may be sufficient on their own to allow a petition to move forward.
I have not heard full arguments on the issue of interest and costs because it was not necessary for the purposes of this judgment, but in the event that the Lebanese courts accept the payment of the principle sum as valid, then those two issues become important. I will hear submissions as to whether there should be an interim time-limited injunction or undertaking (if offered) to allow for information about the appeal to be provided and for the listing of a further hearing to consider the right of the Respondent to interest or costs of previous proceedings (if necessary).
I will also hear submissions on the issue of costs, although I take the preliminary view that I should also adjourn the issue of costs of this application to a further hearing as the determination of costs is likely to be influenced by the determination as to whether or not there has been payment of the principal sum. I will also extend time for permission to appeal to three weeks after the adjourned hearing although an application for permission to appeal on the principles of this judgment may, of course, be made at any time prior to that date.
DEPUTY INSOLVENCY AND COMPANIES COURT JUDGE JONES
8th May 2024
Authorities referred to in this Judgment
Cases
Angel Group v. British Gas Trading [2013] B.C.C. 265 2
Argyle Crescent Limited v Definite Finance Co Limited [2004] EWHC 3422 (Ch) 2
Bishopsgate Investment Management v Maxwell (1993) Times 11 February 8
Drelle v Servis-Terminal LLC, [2024] EWHC 521 (Ch) 1
Dupleix v De Roven [1705] 23 ER 950 14
Grant v Easton (1883) 12 QBD 302 12
In re Flynn No 2 [1969] 2 Ch 403 12
Jamal v Christiansen [2016] EWHC 2261 (Ch) 13
Lowsley v Forbes (trading as LE Design Services) [1999] 1 AC 329 11
Re Tallington Lakes Ltd v South Kesteven District Council [2012] EWCA Civ 443 2
Ridgeway Motors ( Isleworth ) Ltd v ALTS Ltd [2005 ] EWCA Civ 92 10
Sun Legend Investments v Ho [2013] BPIR 533 9
Tasarruf Mevduati Sigorta Fonu v Demirel and another [2007] EWCACiv 799 2
Van Heeren v Cooper [2014] EWHC 4797 (Ch) 12
Statutes
Insolvency Act 1986 7, 10, 12
- 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)