Scottish Ministers v. Stirton & Ors [2006] ScotCS CSOH_11 (26 January 2006)

Scottish Ministers v. Stirton & Ors [2006] ScotCS CSOH_11 (26 January 2006)

There was no procedural impropriety or material non-disclosure in the ex parte application for the interim administration order; the statutory test of probabilis causa litigandi was met by the petition's averments; and the appointment of the interim administrator under a pseudonym, though not disclosed at the time, did not render the appointment invalid.

Citation
[2006] ScotCS CSOH_11
Parties
Petitioner: The Scottish Ministers; First Respondent: Russell Stirton; Thirteenth Respondent: Alexander Ferguson Anderson; Interim Administrator: Louise Rivers, Mallard Associates
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
26 January 2006
Procedural Posture
Petition for Interim Administration Order / Hearing on Motion for Recall of Interim Administration Order
Outcome
Motion for recall of interim administration order refused
Legal Topics
Interim Administration Order, Ex Parte Procedure, Disclosure Obligations, Probabilis Causa Litigandi, Appointment of Interim Administrator, Use of Pseudonym, Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR
Civil Recovery Proceeds of Crime Human Rights Interim Administration Order Ex Parte Procedure Disclosure Obligations Probabilis Causa Litigandi Appointment of Interim Administrator +2 more

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 3 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Scottish Ministers

Petitioner

Russell Stirton

First Respondent

Alexander Ferguson Anderson

Thirteenth Respondent

Louise Rivers, Mallard Associates

Interim Administrator

Procedural Posture

Petition for Interim Administration Order / Hearing on Motion for Recall of Interim Administration Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the interim administration order should be recalled due to alleged procedural impropriety in ex parte application and non-disclosure
  2. 2 Whether the petition disclosed probabilis causa litigandi as required by statute
  3. 3 Whether the appointment of an interim administrator under a pseudonym is valid

Ratio Decidendi

There was no procedural impropriety or material non-disclosure in the ex parte application for the interim administration order; the statutory test of probabilis causa litigandi was met by the petition's averments; and the appointment of the interim administrator under a pseudonym, though not disclosed at the time, did not render the appointment invalid.

Court Disposition

Motion for recall of interim administration order refused

Orders

  • Case put out By Order to enable parties to make submissions as to future procedure.