North Quarter Lane Chambers is a market leader in insolvency with our members having a broad ranging and specialised expertise in all aspects of corporate and personal insolvency and karacto.xyz members include a number of Queen’s Counsel and Junior Counsel recognised as leading practitioners in insolvency in Queensland and Australia. Many of our members are ranked as leading karacto.xyz The Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, CAP. of the Laws of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Revised Edition 2 All E.R. Paul Baker QC J ruled that bankruptcy proceedings, based on a statutory demand founded on a judgment debt, constituted an “action: in accordance with the provisions of the Limitation Act. At page (E) of his karacto.xyz · Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (the “BIA”). The Companies each failed to file a proposal within the prescribed time period (or any extension thereof) following the filing of theNOI s and, as a result, the Companieswere each deemed to have made an assignment in bankruptcy karacto.xyz //12/canada-inc--notice-of-bankruptcy-engpdf.
Related videosIn Depth - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code Act
North Quarter Lane Chambers is a market leader in insolvency with our members having a broad ranging and specialised expertise in all aspects of corporate and personal insolvency and restructuring.
Our members act and advise in respect of liquidations including acting in disputes regarding setting aside statutory demands and appearing in public examinations , receiverships, administrations, and deeds of company arrangement DOCAs. They act in disputes concerning all types of insolvent transactions including unfair preferences, uncommercial transactions, unfair loans, and unreasonable director-related transactions.
In respect of both corporate and personal insolvency, our barristers act in all types of priority disputes, including disputes under the Personal Property Securities Act Our members act for secured and unsecured creditors including banks, corporate and individual debtors including guarantors, and insolvency practitioners including liquidators, receivers, administrators, deed administrators and trustees in bankruptcy.
Gavin Handran. Mark Johnston. Edward Goodwin. Anastasia Nicholas. Leonid Sheptooha. Therefore, the determination that there was a sum or sums upon which the Petitioner could file the Petition does not equate to a determination that the Petitioner is entitled to the order as prayed. That further determination would entail other considerations which I will undertake shortly.
My emphasis added. They also submit it was as a means of escaping his liabilities and obligations that had accrued. Therefore, like the other bases for the filing of the Petition. I accept that the Petitioner was entitled to rely on the same to file, the question whether he is however entitled to the prayers based on these actions is an entirely different question.
However, as I intimated earlier even though the sums claimed were in excess of this threshold that did not mean that the claims are either valid or enforceable to allow for the making of the order sought. They have challenged the right of the Petitioner to rely on this judgment and the ancillary debts as claimed. Marks and part at least of the debt said to be owed to Ms. Counsel who held for Mr. Bollers as counsel on record indicated that such a response could be filed by the 21 st December on the basis that he would undertake to prepare the submissions and have them filed due to the medical condition of Mr.
Bollers which seemed without any formal notice to this court to that effect to have resulted in Mr. Based on this undertaking, this court deferred making an order on the matter as stood before it.
On the 9 th January I received skeleton arguments from what appeared to be Counsel Mr. Bollers, some 19 days late with NO accompanying application seeking the same to be deemed properly filed. As far as this court is therefore concerned, these submissions are not properly before it. However, in making this determination I will address my mind to the submissions contained therein as a matter of completeness.
It stuns the court that the Petitioner has sought to raise that argument as an answer to what this court sees as a legitimate and possibly insurmountable hurdle.
I say so in the context of these proceedings. The court on the hearing of the application agreed with the contentions made by counsel for the Petitioner that the issues raised on that Notice of Motion could be dealt with in the substantive hearing and did not require the proceedings to be protracted by the granting of a stay of the same.
I therefore find it disingenuous of the Petitioner to take the point that it has raised regarding this argument. Additionally, when one peruses the Regulations  sought to be relied upon by the Petitioner, it is clear, that provision is made in those rules that where there are lapses of procedure, that the court is empowered to find that such lapses do not affect the proceedings.
I do not accept as indicated earlier that failure to include this point in the notice of objection is fatal to the Respondent especially when one reads the intention of the notice of objection is to show cause against the petition.
As stated, the Petitioner clearly knew the objections on the part of the Respondent and there was no prejudice to him especially considering the submissions that were made by counsel and to which the court acceded as stated earlier in the judgment.
From the learning found by this court the answer appears to be a resounding yes even having considered the later persuasive authorities provided by counsel for the Petitioner. At page E of his judgment he stated:. But while they are not part of the proceedings which led to the judgment — they are not some continuation in any way of those proceedings — they are based on or related to the judgment.
The bankruptcy proceedings in the Medway Court are brought on a judgment obtained in another court. I have stressed that because it is well settled that the limitation period in s. Additionally,in the ancient case of Ex parte Dewdney, Ex parte Seaman  the court as long ago as the 19 th century made it clear that it would be improper where there was a spent debt to allow it to be revived simply by the filing of a petition in the bankruptcy jurisdiction.
As I indicated earlier in this judgment, I do not consider that the skeleton arguments are properly before this court given the state of play. However, for completeness, I have perused the same and in particular, the judgment mentioned above which was relied on heavily by the Petitioner.
Rather the debt continues to be owed. Thus such a debt can be the basis on which an application for a bankruptcy order can be made. Indeed, I agree with the Learned judge that in Ontario this may indeed be the position, but I do not agree that this can apply wholesale or at all to our jurisdiction.