星空传媒

A dispute arose and an adjudicator, Allan Wood, was appointed.

On May 19, 2005, he ruled that Ms Teasdale had to pay 拢90,194.53 including interest. Ms Teasdale did not pay, but instead of enforcing the decision, H&M decided to issue a statutory demand as a precursor to alleging bankruptcy.

On August 1, 2005, Ms Teasdale belatedly applied to have the statutory demand cancelled.

She was granted a stay and on September 16 she produced an affidavit supporting her application and on December 1, the statutory demand was set aside by consent.

As H&M had applied for the enforcement of the adjudicator's decision by the usual legal route a couple of days earlier, the court was also charged with apportioning the costs of the aborted bankruptcy proceedings.

Ms Teasdale defended her non payment by alleging defects in the work, the adjudication being unfair because it was so quick and her concern that H&M would be unable to repay her when she won the subsequent court case.

The Court dismissed all her arguments, pointing out in doing so that adjudication had been designed to be quick.

H&M was awarded 拢95,024.85 including additional interest to February 13, 2006.

However, the court was in a quandary over the costs of the bankruptcy proceedings.

On the one hand Ms Teasdale had won because they had been set aside, but on the other the proceedings had resulted in her affidavit she had not previously .

On balance the court decided that each side should pay its own legal costs for the bankruptcy proceedings.

MORAL: Change your legal tack and you may be stuck with legal expenses.