Finance Litigation Briefing February 2017

Repeat bites at the cherry is contrary to the public interest

It is an abuse of process for a debtor to continue to dispute a debt when the court has already dismissed the debtor's arguments on their merits in earlier proceedings between the parties.

We have reported on the Harvey v Dunbar Assets PLC proceedings on a number of previous occasions. It will be recalled that the lender issued a statutory demand (the first demand) in relation to a guarantee entered into by Harvey (and others) guaranteeing a company loan. Harvey applied, unsuccessfully, to set the first demand aside on the basis of promissory estoppel. He alleged he had been told by the lender that the guarantee was a mere formality and would not be enforced against him (the estoppel argument). The court rejected that argument as having no real prospect of success and dismissed the application. Harvey appealed. The first demand was set aside by the Court of Appeal but on other grounds