Octagon Assets Ltd v Remblance and Another
Court of Appeal
“Where rent arrears were sought from both a corporate tenant and a guarantor it was ostensibly unjust to decline to set aside a statutory demand obtained against the guarantor mrerly because he could afford to pay the debt; if a statutory demand would not be sustained against the principal debtor it was also unjust to treat the guarantor differently.”
The Times, 27th July 2009
Octagon v Remblance and another  EWCA Civ 581;  WLR (D) 196
“In a case in which a corporate tenant and a guarantor were pursued for rent arrears, it was difficult to see how it could be just not to set aside a statutory demand obtained against the guarantor where the principal debtor satisfied one of the conditions in r 6.5(4)(a) of the Insolvency Rules 1986, merely because the guarantor could afford to pay the debt. Moreover, where the tenant’s and guarantor’s liability were co-extensive and there were no good reasons for distinguishing between the position of the guarantor and that which would obtain if the tenant applied under r 6.5(4)(a) to set aside a statutory demand, justice and r 6.5(4)(d) of the 1986 Rules demanded that a statutory demand obtained against the guarantor should be set aside.”
WLR Daily, 18th June 2009
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.