Neutral Citation No:  NICh 9
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down
(subject to editorial corrections)*
"(1) An order for rescission/set aside of the contract/Tomlin Order entered into by the plaintiffs and the defendant on 9 May 2016 by reason of a breach of contract and misrepresentation of the defendant.
(2) An order for the setting aside of the court order/judgment dated 13 December 2016 by reason of the breach of contract and misrepresentation of the defendant."
"After issue of the application to set aside the statutory demands, I prepared and issued a writ which makes the claim that the settlement and the judgment should be set aside … In that matter, my wife and I are representing ourselves, which is still at an early stage. … I respectfully say that the dispute to the statutory demand is based on the proceedings seeking to set aside the settlement in the judgment. I invite this honourable court to find that there is an issue to be tried through the medium of the proceedings which my wife and I have issued, and that until that action is determined, it would be premature to rule that there is no dispute to the statutory demand."
In addition his counsel made the following argument which was recorded at paragraph  of Judge Devlin's judgment as follows:
"In the present case counsel of the appellant sought to draw attention to the issue of the writ of summons by the appellant on 14 February 2018, and to its contents. He argued that it was clear that the appellant by now issuing these proceedings was seeking to challenge both the judgment and the settlement upon which that judgment was based. He argued that by reason of this issue, and having regard to its contents, until such time as these proceedings had been determined, it could not be said there was no dispute to the statutory demand relied upon by the bank."
"… Failure to apply to set aside a statutory demand or an unsuccessful attempt to do so, conclusively determines the liability of the debtor to pay the debt demanded by the creditor. Any attempt to either litigate or re-litigate liability for the debt at the petition stage, I find, is res judicata or otherwise an abuse of the process of court unless there has been a change of circumstances between the dismissal of the application to set aside the statutory demand and the hearing of the Bankruptcy petition."