Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Penwith District Council v VP Development Ltd

Penwith District Council v VP Development Ltd Penwith District Council v VP Developments Ltd 1 March 2005 Laddie J Companies Court [2005] EWHC 259 (Ch) [2005] ArbLR 46 Arbitration proceedings--Parallel proceedings--Winding-up petition against claimant in eight arbitrations--Claimant in arbitration insolvent and subject to various costs orders--Whether special circumstances (no)--Whether to allow petition to wind up (no) Claimant in arbitration not wound up where arbitration serious and substantial VP Developments entered into a number of building contracts with Penwith relating to renovations and other building work to flats and houses owned by Penwith. Each of the contracts contained an arbitration provision. Disputes arose. Following a meeting of its creditors, VP Developments had entered into a CVA and a supervisor was appointed. One of the reasons for the CVA was to allow VP Developments to pursue claims of approximately £600,000 against Penwith. Claiming that it had been underpaid, VP Developments commenced eight arbitration proceedings. The petition debt comprising various costs orders against VP Developments in the arbitration proceedings stood at just over £96,000. Further, Penwith also had the benefit of a High Court costs order in its favour which, together with interest, was worth just over £29,000. In addition, unassessed cost orders had been made against VP http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Arbitration Law Reports and Review Oxford University Press

Penwith District Council v VP Development Ltd

Arbitration Law Reports and Review , Volume 2005 (1) – Jan 1, 2005

Penwith District Council v VP Development Ltd

Arbitration Law Reports and Review , Volume 2005 (1) – Jan 1, 2005

Abstract

Penwith District Council v VP Developments Ltd 1 March 2005 Laddie J Companies Court [2005] EWHC 259 (Ch) [2005] ArbLR 46 Arbitration proceedings--Parallel proceedings--Winding-up petition against claimant in eight arbitrations--Claimant in arbitration insolvent and subject to various costs orders--Whether special circumstances (no)--Whether to allow petition to wind up (no) Claimant in arbitration not wound up where arbitration serious and substantial VP Developments entered into a number of building contracts with Penwith relating to renovations and other building work to flats and houses owned by Penwith. Each of the contracts contained an arbitration provision. Disputes arose. Following a meeting of its creditors, VP Developments had entered into a CVA and a supervisor was appointed. One of the reasons for the CVA was to allow VP Developments to pursue claims of approximately £600,000 against Penwith. Claiming that it had been underpaid, VP Developments commenced eight arbitration proceedings. The petition debt comprising various costs orders against VP Developments in the arbitration proceedings stood at just over £96,000. Further, Penwith also had the benefit of a High Court costs order in its favour which, together with interest, was worth just over £29,000. In addition, unassessed cost orders had been made against VP

Loading next page...
 
/lp/oxford-university-press/penwith-district-council-v-vp-development-ltd-oy4N4vFk3o
Publisher
Oxford University Press
Copyright
© Oxford University Press, 2009
Subject
Judgments
ISSN
2044-8651
eISSN
2044-9887
DOI
10.1093/alrr/2005.1.609
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Penwith District Council v VP Developments Ltd 1 March 2005 Laddie J Companies Court [2005] EWHC 259 (Ch) [2005] ArbLR 46 Arbitration proceedings--Parallel proceedings--Winding-up petition against claimant in eight arbitrations--Claimant in arbitration insolvent and subject to various costs orders--Whether special circumstances (no)--Whether to allow petition to wind up (no) Claimant in arbitration not wound up where arbitration serious and substantial VP Developments entered into a number of building contracts with Penwith relating to renovations and other building work to flats and houses owned by Penwith. Each of the contracts contained an arbitration provision. Disputes arose. Following a meeting of its creditors, VP Developments had entered into a CVA and a supervisor was appointed. One of the reasons for the CVA was to allow VP Developments to pursue claims of approximately £600,000 against Penwith. Claiming that it had been underpaid, VP Developments commenced eight arbitration proceedings. The petition debt comprising various costs orders against VP Developments in the arbitration proceedings stood at just over £96,000. Further, Penwith also had the benefit of a High Court costs order in its favour which, together with interest, was worth just over £29,000. In addition, unassessed cost orders had been made against VP

Journal

Arbitration Law Reports and ReviewOxford University Press

Published: Jan 1, 2005

There are no references for this article.