A Company

This is an application by the company for an injunction restraining the Respondent, Publishing 2000 Group Limited (“Publishing 2000”), from presenting a winding up petition against the company in reliance on a statutory demand dated 23 December 2004 which was served by Publishing 2000 on the company and by which payment of two invoices was demanded in a total sum of £320,439.27.

Following the receipt of that demand, the company’s solicitors, Eversheds, wrote on 7 January 2005 to Publishing 2000 setting out the grounds on which the company claims that the demand was misconceived, in the sense that it was said that the debt upon which it purported to be based was and is disputed on substantial grounds. There was no response to that letter and on 14 January the company applied for a short-term injunction preventing presentation of a petition, that application having been made on a without notice basis.

On Friday afternoon David Richards J granted an injunction over today. The company gave an undertaking to issue and serve an application notice returnable today as soon as was practicable. That application notice was issued and served on 17 January which, having regard to the lateness of the hour in which the application was made to David Richards J, was no doubt as soon as practicable. The evidence of Mr Keen before me proves service on the company of David Richard J’s order and of the application notice for today. There has been no response to the order or to the application notice so the matter proceeds before me today on an unopposed basis.

The evidence in support of the application is contained in the witness statement of Ulrich Kloptex Von (inaudible), which is a very comprehensive and carefully drawn statement occupying some 28 pages. It reflects a somewhat complicated factual background, which I do not propose to endeavour to summarise. The story is there, it is unanswered and it satisfies me that there is a substantial ground of dispute as to whether a single penny of the debt asserted in the statutory demand is due and also that, even if a single penny is due, the company has a cross-claim against Publishing 2000 for some £800,000, or at least an arguable cross-claim for such a sum. On any footing that cross-claim substantially overtops the amount of the debt referred to in the statutory demand.

That being so, I am satisfied that the debt is disputed on substantial grounds. The consequence is that Publishing 2000 has no locus standi as a creditor to present a winding up petition against the company and I will grant an injunction against Publishing 2000 restraining it from doing so.