MRK1 Ltd v Sakur & Ors [2008] ScotCS CSOH_176 (16 December 2008)

MRK1 Ltd v Sakur & Ors [2008] ScotCS CSOH_176 (16 December 2008)

The pursuers have a prima facie case as the defenders' fraud defence is irrelevant without a claim for reduction or damages. There is a real and substantial risk that enforcement of any decree would be defeated or prejudiced by reason of the defenders being insolvent or verging on insolvency. It is reasonable in all the circumstances for the warrant for diligence on the dependence to continue in effect.

Citation
[2008] ScotCS CSOH_176
Parties
Pursuer: MRK 1 Limited; Defender: Mohamed Zahir Sakur and Suneia Momade Bachir, as Partners of and Trustees for the Firm of Sara Properties; Defender: the firm of Sara Properties
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
16 December 2008
Procedural Posture
Motion for Recall of Warrant for Diligence on the Dependence (inhibition and Arrestment) Under Section 15 K of the Debtors (scotland) Act 1987 / Interlocutory Hearing on Defenders' Application for Recall
Outcome
Defenders' motion for recall of the warrant for diligence on the dependence refused.
Legal Topics
Recall of Diligence on the Dependence, Fraudulent Inducement, Specific Implement, Insolvency Risk, Remedies for Breach of Contract
Civil Procedure Contract Law Recall of Diligence on the Dependence Fraudulent Inducement Specific Implement Insolvency Risk Remedies for Breach of Contract

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MRK 1 Limited

Pursuer

Mohamed Zahir Sakur and Suneia Momade Bachir, as Partners of and Trustees for the Firm of Sara Properties

Defender

the firm of Sara Properties

Defender

Procedural Posture

Motion for Recall of Warrant for Diligence on the Dependence (inhibition and Arrestment) Under Section 15 K of the Debtors (scotland) Act 1987 / Interlocutory Hearing on Defenders' Application for Recall

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuers have a prima facie case on the merits of the action
  2. 2 Whether there is a real and substantial risk that enforcement of any decree would be defeated or prejudiced by reason of the defenders being insolvent or verging on insolvency
  3. 3 Whether there is a risk of the defenders dissipating assets

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuers have a prima facie case as the defenders' fraud defence is irrelevant without a claim for reduction or damages. There is a real and substantial risk that enforcement of any decree would be defeated or prejudiced by reason of the defenders being insolvent or verging on insolvency. It is reasonable in all the circumstances for the warrant for diligence on the dependence to continue in effect.

Court Disposition

Defenders' motion for recall of the warrant for diligence on the dependence refused.

Orders

  • Warrant for diligence on the dependence to continue in effect.
  • Parties to enrol appropriate motion regarding expenses.