The Chancery Division dismissed an appeal that had arisen from two orders. By the first order, a winding up petition was dismissed in respect of the first respondent, a statutory demand was set aside, and a bankruptcy petition against the third respondent was dismissed due to a dispute about whether the third respondent was a partner of the first respondent, and whether there was a partnership. By the second order, the appellants were ordered to pay the costs of the three respondents. The winding up petition was dismissed because it was governed by art 8 of the Insolvent Partnerships Order 1994, SI 1994/2421, and no statutory demand had been served, even though it was initially brought under art 7 of the Order. The court held that there was no error in holding that there was a substantial dispute as to the existence of an alleged partnership, in light of the findings regarding affidavit evidence; weight given to evidence was a matter for the judge. Similarly, the judge did not err in her evaluation of the third respondent's evidence. Further, the appeal was not the place to have a full consideration of the relationship between art 7 and 8 of the Order. Furthermore, the appellants were not entitled to rely upon a liquidated debt on the basis that a sum could not be liquidated and unliquidated in parts.