|
|
|
|
|
RECENT CASES |
|
The court restrained the presentation of a winding up petition against a company because the statutory demand upon which it was based was an “extreme abuse of process”. Ms X alleged that an employee of the company, together with a member of the Royal family, had stalked her for a number of years. She alleged that the employee used the company’s helicopter when harassing her. The employee denied these allegations. Although Ms X’s claims were under investigation by the police, neither the employee nor the company had been found liable. Ms X presented a statutory demand against the company for over £86M, representing her own assessment of the company’s vicarious liability for its employee’s alleged harassment. The company disputed the debt on which the statutory demand was based because it did not accept that there had been any harassment for which it could be held vicariously liable. It had no other relationship with Ms X under which it could be liable to her. The court agreed with the company and restrained Ms X from presenting a petition on the basis of her statutory demand. For a statutory demand to be based on a tort, the alleged victim first had to prove that the company was liable. Ms X had not done so and, therefore, was not a creditor of the company. Her claim was “fanciful” and the use of a statutory demand in these circumstances was an “extreme abuse of process”. As well as restraining the presentation of the petition, a company can apply for a petition which has already been presented to be struck out as an abuse of process, see ¶7705+. |
|
Statutory demand an extreme abuse of process
See CLM: ¶7641 |
|
Re Rare Ltd [2007] All ER (D) 381 (Jun) |
