SUBSTITUTION APPLICATION – CHANGE OF PETITIONER
On 10 May 2013, the Court ruled that the Petition presented on 10 July 2012 by Saturn Petrochemicals Holdings Limited (“Saturn”) was liable to be struck-out on the basis that Saturn lacked standing. Saturn applied, inter partes, for leave to appeal against this determination.
Saturn’s Petition was accordingly adjourned to 23 July 2013 when KTL Camden’s application to be substituted as Petitioner was also listed for effective hearing. At the 23 July 2013 hearing, the Company was granted leave to appeal. This was on the basis that the Judge proposed on that same date to both strike-out Saturn’s Petition and adjudicate KTL Camden’s substitution application so that either there would be no petition before the Court at all, subject to Saturn’s appeal, or the Petition would be amended so as to substitute the new Petitioner. Saturn’s application was not opposed by the Company.