Chopra v Katrin Properties Ltd 
In this combined hearing, four applicants applied variously for seven statutory demands served by two respondents to be set aside.
After initial submissions for Ms Tina Chopra against Katrin Properties Ltd in two of the applications had closed in December 2021, she sought permission to adduce a further witness statement and exhibited expert handwriting evidence. After permission was granted, she sought to make reopen submissions and argue that the signature on two personal guarantees was not hers and may have been forged.
CICCJ Briggs set aside the two statutory demands served by Katrin Properties Ltd, on the basis that the issue of the signatures raised an issue that ought to be determined at trial, and also that no proper demand under the guarantee was made for repayment. Although such handwriting evidence was ‘inherently implausible’ with regards to one of the other applicants, the fact that it was ‘improbable’ in relation to Ms Chopra nevertheless meant it was an issue unsuitable to be resolved at a set aside application.
Bertie Beor-Roberts, instructed by One Law Chambers, represented the successful First Applicant in the second and third days of the set aside applications.