Case Law Database - Free Law Cases:
Are You Writing a Law Essay?
Perhaps you are currently struggling with a dissertation or piece of coursework? Law Teacher provides students with hundreds of resources to make academic life so much easier! The case law database you are currently viewing is one such resource, but why not purchase a custom essay for guaranteed success?! Our researchers have access to thousands of cases similar to this one. So stop struggling - Order a Custom Essay Today!
Case Law : Company | Contract | Criminal | Employment | Equity | EU | Land | Tort | Other
3H Europe Ltd, Re
[2006] All ER (D) 25 (Oct)
Court: Comp Ct
Judgment Date: 02/10/2006
Cases considered by this case
Annotations: All CasesCourt: ALL COURTS
Treatment | Case Name | Citations | Court | Date | Signal |
Applied | Company, a (No 0012209 of 1991), Re | [1992] 2 All ER 797, [1992] 1 WLR 351, [1992] BCLC 865 | Ch D | circa 1992 |
COMPANIES - COMPULSORY WINDING UP - RESTRAINING PRESENTATION OF PETITION - DISPUTED DEBT - APPLICATION BY COMPANY TO RESTRAIN PRESENTATION OF WINDING UP PETITION - WHETHER APPLICATION SHOULD BE GRANTED
The respondent company was a supplier of traditional herbal Chinese medicine. In 2003-05 it made supplies to H at certain premises. Following non-payment of certain invoices in respect of those supplies, the respondent served a statutory demand on the applicant company (the company). The company subsequently applied for an injunction to restrain the respondent from presenting a winding up petition against it. The company disputed the debt on the basis that it was not in contractual relations with the respondent in relation to those invoices. It claimed that the supplies had been made to another person, QH. Before the court there was evidence of a share sale agreement (the agreement) pursuant to which the present owners of the company had purchased the company from its predecessors. The agreement contained a number of warranties, including a warranty that the company was the sole beneficial owner of certain leasehold properties listed in the agreement, and that the properties so listed were the only properties in which the company had any right, title or interest, or which the company used or occupied. The respondent exhibited a list of properties which were in H's name, which it had delivered supplies to. Some of those properties were included in the list of properties which the company claimed to be beneficial owner of. The company's case was, inter alia, that the evidence showed that QH and not the company had been carrying on business at some of the properties that the respondent claimed to have delivered supplies to. The respondent contended, inter alia, that the evidence suggested that the company had been a contracting party to its contract with H.
Held - The application would be dismissed. It was an abuse of process to present a winding up petition against a solvent company as a means of putting pressure on it to pay money which was bona fide disputed, instead of applying for summary judgment. In those circumstances, the court would issue an injunction restraining presentation of the petition. In the instant case, in the absence of other evidence, the overwhelming inference was that the company had been carrying on business at the relevant premises under H's name and there was no evidence of a business transfer from QH to the company. In the circumstances, there was no bona fide claim on substantial grounds which could be used as a defence to the respondent's petition.
