Bee v. T & N Shelf Twenty Six Ltd & Ors [2002] ScotCS 353 (27 August 2002)

Bee v. T & N Shelf Twenty Six Ltd & Ors [2002] ScotCS 353 (27 August 2002)

It is competent to sist proceedings in part, including against one of several joint and several defenders, where an administration order prohibits proceedings against that party. Section 11(3)(d) of the Insolvency Act 1986 requires a stay only against the company in administration and related contribution claims, not the whole action. Allowing the case to proceed against the remaining defenders does not prejudice any party's rights or defences and avoids undue delay to the pursuer.

Citation
[2002] ScotCS 353
Parties
Pursuer: George Bee; First Defender: T. & N. Shelf Twenty Six Limited (formerly Turners Asbestos Cement Co. Ltd); Second Defender: SGB plc; Third Defender: South of Scotland Electricity Board (SSEB) successors
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
27 August 2002
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Damages Action / Interlocutory Hearing on Motion to Sist Proceedings in Part
Outcome
Partial sist granted; proceedings against first defenders and related contribution claims sisted; case to proceed to proof before answer against second and third defenders.
Legal Topics
Partial Sist (stay) of Proceedings, Joint and Several Liability, Contribution Among Defenders, Effect of Administration Order, Delay and Article 6 ECHR
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Employment Law Insolvency Partial Sist (stay) of Proceedings Joint and Several Liability Contribution Among Defenders Effect of Administration Order +1 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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

George Bee

Pursuer

T. & N. Shelf Twenty Six Limited (formerly Turners Asbestos Cement Co. Ltd)

First Defender

SGB plc

Second Defender

South of Scotland Electricity Board (SSEB) successors

Third Defender

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Damages Action / Interlocutory Hearing on Motion to Sist Proceedings in Part

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is it competent to sist (stay) proceedings against one of several defenders in a joint and several damages action while allowing the case to proceed against the others?
  2. 2 Does section 11 of the Insolvency Act 1986 require a stay of the whole action or only against the company in administration?
  3. 3 Would a partial sist prejudice any party's rights or defences?

Ratio Decidendi

It is competent to sist proceedings in part, including against one of several joint and several defenders, where an administration order prohibits proceedings against that party. Section 11(3)(d) of the Insolvency Act 1986 requires a stay only against the company in administration and related contribution claims, not the whole action. Allowing the case to proceed against the remaining defenders does not prejudice any party's rights or defences and avoids undue delay to the pursuer.

Court Disposition

Partial sist granted; proceedings against first defenders and related contribution claims sisted; case to proceed to proof before answer against second and third defenders.

Orders

  • Sist proceedings against first defenders for damages and contribution claims under section 3 of the 1940 Act.
  • Allow proof before answer on pursuer's claim against second and third defenders and their contribution claims inter se.