Ingrid Gray and Catherine Deeney or Sweaton against the Accountant in Bankruptcy as the DAS administrator (Sheriff Court Civil) [2025] SCDUN 23 (13 February 2025)

Ingrid Gray and Catherine Deeney or Sweaton against the Accountant in Bankruptcy as the DAS administrator (Sheriff Court Civil) [2025] SCDUN 23 (13 February 2025)

The defender failed to have regard to relevant factors, specifically the equity in Mr Cape's heritable properties and the possibility of selling assets to satisfy the debt, as required by Regulation 25(2). This constituted an error in law and rendered the approval of the DPP not fair and reasonable.

Citation
[2025] SCDUN 23
Parties
Pursuer: Ingrid Gray; Pursuer: Catherine Deeney or Sweaton; Defender: The Accountant in Bankruptcy as the DAS Administrator
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
13 February 2025
Procedural Posture
Appeal (sheriff Court Civil) / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Debt Arrangement Scheme, Debt Payment Programme Approval, Fair and Reasonable Test, Administrative Review, Personal Insolvency
Insolvency Debt Recovery Civil Procedure Debt Arrangement Scheme Debt Payment Programme Approval Fair and Reasonable Test Administrative Review Personal Insolvency

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ingrid Gray

Pursuer

Catherine Deeney or Sweaton

Pursuer

The Accountant in Bankruptcy as the DAS Administrator

Defender

Procedural Posture

Appeal (sheriff Court Civil) / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defender failed to have regard to relevant factors under Regulation 25(2) when approving the Debt Payment Programme
  2. 2 Whether the defender's decision was fair and reasonable as required by the Regulations

Ratio Decidendi

The defender failed to have regard to relevant factors, specifically the equity in Mr Cape's heritable properties and the possibility of selling assets to satisfy the debt, as required by Regulation 25(2). This constituted an error in law and rendered the approval of the DPP not fair and reasonable.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • sustains, in part, the pursuers' plea-in-law and repels the defender's pleas-in-law
  • allows the appeal