In In re A Debtor (No . 1 of 1987)the Court of Appeal refused to follow that approach and held that a statutory demand, which on the face of it contained a number of puzzling and perplexing statements, was nonetheless valid because the debtor knew precisely what he owed and there was no injustice in holding that his failure to pay the debt gave rise to a presumption that he was unable to pay.
In In re A Debtor (No . 1 of 1987)the Court of Appeal refused to follow that approach and held that a statutory demand, which Encountering contained a number of puzzling and perplexing statements, was nonetheless valid because the debtor knew precisely what he owed and there was no injustice in holding that his failure to pay the debt gave rise to a presumption that he was unable to pay.