McLeannan (Tay Square Properties Ltd) [2004] ScotCS 262 (03 December 2004)
Section 236 of the Insolvency Act 1986 applies equally in Scotland and England, abrogating the privilege against self-incrimination for examinees. Article 6 ECHR is not engaged by section 236 proceedings, as they are investigative, not adjudicative. Even if Article 6 were engaged, the balance of interests favours requiring answers without warning, with any fairness concerns to be addressed in subsequent proceedings.
- Citation
- [2004] ScotCS 262
- Parties
- Noter (liquidator): Thomas Campbell McLennan, Chartered Accountant, Liquidator of Tay Square Properties Limited; Examinee (company Director): Scott Taylor, director of Tay Square Properties Limited
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judgment Date
- 03 December 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Application Under Section 236 of the Insolvency Act 1986 / Opinion on Privilege Against Self Incrimination During Examination
- Outcome
- Application granted; examinees must answer questions without self-incrimination warning.
- Legal Topics
- Privilege Against Self Incrimination, Examination of Company Officers, Interpretation of Section 236 Insolvency Act 1986, Article 6 ECHR Applicability
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Thomas Campbell McLennan, Chartered Accountant, Liquidator of Tay Square Properties Limited
Noter (liquidator)
Scott Taylor, director of Tay Square Properties Limited
Examinee (company Director)
Procedural Posture
Application Under Section 236 of the Insolvency Act 1986 / Opinion on Privilege Against Self Incrimination During Examination
Legal Issues
- 1 Does section 236 of the Insolvency Act 1986 abrogate the privilege against self-incrimination for examinees in Scotland?
- 2 Is Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights engaged by section 236 proceedings?
Ratio Decidendi
Section 236 of the Insolvency Act 1986 applies equally in Scotland and England, abrogating the privilege against self-incrimination for examinees. Article 6 ECHR is not engaged by section 236 proceedings, as they are investigative, not adjudicative. Even if Article 6 were engaged, the balance of interests favours requiring answers without warning, with any fairness concerns to be addressed in subsequent proceedings.
Court Disposition
Application granted; examinees must answer questions without self-incrimination warning.
Orders
- Mr. Taylor and any other examinee in the current section 236 proceedings must answer questions without any warning about self-incrimination.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment