ASERTIS LTD AGAINST CHERYL DUNN [2022] ScotCS CSOH_87 (02 December 2022)

ASERTIS LTD AGAINST CHERYL DUNN [2022] ScotCS CSOH_87 (02 December 2022)

The defender failed to aver or offer to prove that the payments made to her were, at the time, intended as consideration for services rendered or commission due under any agreement. The pleadings did not link any specific payment to any contractual entitlement, and the defences were confusing, contradictory, and contained only assertions of belief without supporting facts. Accordingly, the defender had no relevant defence, and the pursuer was entitled to decree de plano for the sum sued for.

Citation
[2022] ScotCS CSOH_87
Parties
Pursuer: Asertis Limited; Defender: Cheryl Dunn
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
02 December 2022
Procedural Posture
Commercial Action (outer House, Court of Session, Scotland) / Hearing on Pursuer's Motion for Decree De Plano and Summary Decree
Outcome
Decree de plano granted in favour of the pursuer for the sum sued for.
Legal Topics
Gratuitous Alienation, Adequate Consideration, Assignment of Claims in Insolvency, Summary Decree, Pleading Standards
Insolvency Commercial Law Gratuitous Alienation Adequate Consideration Assignment of Claims in Insolvency Summary Decree Pleading Standards

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Asertis Limited

Pursuer

Cheryl Dunn

Defender

Procedural Posture

Commercial Action (outer House, Court of Session, Scotland) / Hearing on Pursuer's Motion for Decree De Plano and Summary Decree

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether payments made to the defender by HGEC were gratuitous alienations under section 242 of the Insolvency Act 1986
  2. 2 Whether the defender gave adequate consideration for the payments received
  3. 3 Whether the defender's pleadings disclosed a relevant defence to the pursuer's claim

Ratio Decidendi

The defender failed to aver or offer to prove that the payments made to her were, at the time, intended as consideration for services rendered or commission due under any agreement. The pleadings did not link any specific payment to any contractual entitlement, and the defences were confusing, contradictory, and contained only assertions of belief without supporting facts. Accordingly, the defender had no relevant defence, and the pursuer was entitled to decree de plano for the sum sued for.

Court Disposition

Decree de plano granted in favour of the pursuer for the sum sued for.

Orders

  • Decree de plano for payment of £583,146.92 by the defender to the pursuer.
  • Minute of amendment by the defender refused.