Key Facts
- •Lendinvest BTL Ltd (Petitioner) filed a winding-up petition against Property Services LDN Ltd (Company) due to unpaid costs (£20,000) from a previous Queen's Bench Division case (QB-2021-002969).
- •The Company opposed the petition, claiming a larger cross-claim against the Petitioner and arguing the costs order was invalid.
- •The dispute stemmed from the sale of four properties owned by Laverstock Management Corporation Ltd (Laverstock), which was in administration.
- •Laverstock had allegedly sold the properties to the Company before the Petitioner appointed receivers.
- •The Petitioner's receivers sold the properties at auction, leading to the Company's claim of inducement of breach of contract against the Petitioner.
Legal Principles
A winding-up order will not be made if the debt is genuinely disputed on substantial grounds.
Colicolour Ltd v Camtrex Ltd [2015] EWHC 3202 (Ch)
If a debtor company asserts a cross-claim, it must be genuine and serious; one of substance.
Re Bayoil SA [1999] 1 WLR 147
The court will consider the evidence in detail, even if it involves an exercise similar to an application for summary judgment.
Re A Company No.006685 [1997] BCC 830
A cross-claim must be demonstrated with evidence; bare assertions are insufficient.
LDX International Group LLP v Misra Ventures Limited [2018] EWHC 275 (Ch)
The company must properly explain the basis of the claimed dispute and show it's substantial.
Winnington Networks Communications Ltd v HM Revenue & Customs [2015] B.C.C. 554
Elements of the tort of inducing breach of contract (Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd v James Kemball Ltd [2021] EWCA Civ 33)
Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd v James Kemball Ltd [2021] EWCA Civ 33
Outcomes
The winding-up petition succeeds.
The Company failed to raise a genuine and substantial cross-claim with sufficient evidence and proper particularization. The alleged claim was not promptly raised, inadequately evidenced, and lacked proof of inducement.