Court Restrains Respondent from Winding Up Company Over Disputed Debt: Key Legal Principles and Outcomes

Citation: [2023] EWHC 2725 (Ch)
Judgment on


In the case of Morrison Water Services Limited v William David Browning, the High Court of Justice was presented with an application to restrain the respondent from applying to wind up the applicant company on the grounds of disputed debt. The case was heard before Upper Tribunal Judge Mark West sitting as a Judge of the High Court and revolved around whether there was a bona fide and substantial dispute regarding the debt claimed by Mr. Browning, the respondent. The key legal principles applied are those relating to winding up petitions and disputed debts, including issues surrounding settlement agreements and contractual disputes.

Key Facts

Mr. Browning had served a statutory demand on the applicant, MWS, claiming a debt due of £51,537, later reduced to £43,705. This amount included alleged unpaid bonus, expenses, mileage, and tax discrepancies, which MWS contested. Following this, MWS brought an application under rule 7.24 of the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016 for an order restraining Mr. Browning from winding up the company due to the disputed debt.

The dispute centered primarily on the interpretation and implications of a Settlement Agreement which MWS argued settled all claims concerning Mr. Browning’s employment and its termination. The agreement, among other terms, included a waiver from Mr. Browning of any further claims against MWS relating to his employment upon accepting a final settlement payment.

The legal principles applied in this case can be drawn from several key areas, namely:

  1. The “Without Prejudice” Rule: The judgment reaffirms that without prejudice material is not admissible in circumstances where parties are seeking to settle. This principle is embedded in public policy to encourage settlement without fear that offers and admissions will prejudice future litigation.

  2. Summary Judgment Standards in Statutory Demand Disputes: A debt is disputable on substantial grounds even if the defense might be considered “shadowy” in a summary judgment context. This low threshold applies to restraining the presentation of a winding-up petition.

  3. Entire Agreement and Waiver Clauses: The Settlement Agreement featured clauses preventing the respondent from claiming additional payments beyond the agreement terms. The court had to consider whether such clauses effectively barred the respondent’s claims.

  4. Disputed Debts and Winding-Up Petitions: Following principles from cases like Angel Group v. British Gas, a winding-up petition should not be used to resolve disputes that are substantial and made in good faith. The court is to be vigilant against both unjustified claims and the inappropriate use of insolvency proceedings as a form of commercial oppression.

  5. Abuse of Process: The court considered whether the respondent’s actions in issuing a statutory demand and proceeding with a winding-up petition constituted an abuse of the court’s process, reaffirmed by Mann v Goldstein that such prevention is crucial to the court’s jurisdiction.


The application by MWS was successful. The Court found that the totality of the petitioner debt was disputed on bona fide and substantial grounds, mainly due to the clauses in the Settlement Agreement waiving further claims against MWS. Accordingly, Mr. Browning was restrained indefinitely from applying to wind up MWS, and the Court ordered that he must pay MWS’s costs, which were summarily assessed at £2,550, within 28 days.


The decision in Morrison Water Services Limited v William David Browning is significant for its elucidation of how the courts will interpret settlement agreements and handle statutory demands in the context of winding-up petitions. It reinforces the principle that the Courts will not allow such petitions to resolve disputes that should be dealt with in other forms of litigation and underscores the importance of drafting clear and comprehensive settlement agreements. The case serves as an informative precedent on the appropriate use of winding-up procedures and the potential costs implications for parties who fail to adhere to those procedures.

Related Summaries