Grantly Developments & Ors v. Clydesdale Bank Plc & Ors [2002] ScotCS 66 (14th March, 2002)

Grantly Developments & Ors v. Clydesdale Bank Plc & Ors [2002] ScotCS 66 (14th March, 2002)

The petitioners failed to establish sufficient grounds for recall of sequestration; allegations of mala fides were unfounded and overtaken by events; the existence and extent of assets and claims are matters for the permanent trustee, not for proof in recall proceedings; the procedural course adopted below was inappropriate and the petition should be refused.

Citation
[2002] ScotCS 66
Parties
Petitioners and Respondents: Grantly Developments and Others; Respondents and Reclaimers: Clydesdale Bank plc and Others
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Procedural Posture
Reclaiming Motion in Petition for Recall of Sequestration / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) Against Interlocutor Allowing Proof Before Answer
Outcome
Reclaiming motion allowed; interlocutor of Temporary Judge recalled; prayer of the petition refused.
Legal Topics
Recall of Sequestration, Judicial Discretion, Bankruptcy (scotland) Act 1985 S.17, Procedural Fairness
Insolvency Bankruptcy Recall of Sequestration Judicial Discretion Bankruptcy (scotland) Act 1985 S.17 Procedural Fairness

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Grantly Developments and Others

Petitioners and Respondents

Clydesdale Bank plc and Others

Respondents and Reclaimers

Procedural Posture

Reclaiming Motion in Petition for Recall of Sequestration / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) Against Interlocutor Allowing Proof Before Answer

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sequestrations should be recalled under section 17 of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985
  2. 2 Whether the Bank acted mala fide in seeking sequestration
  3. 3 Whether the sequestration serves any useful purpose given the alleged lack of assets for unsecured creditors

Ratio Decidendi

The petitioners failed to establish sufficient grounds for recall of sequestration; allegations of mala fides were unfounded and overtaken by events; the existence and extent of assets and claims are matters for the permanent trustee, not for proof in recall proceedings; the procedural course adopted below was inappropriate and the petition should be refused.

Court Disposition

Reclaiming motion allowed; interlocutor of Temporary Judge recalled; prayer of the petition refused.

Orders

  • Interlocutor of 6 November 2001 recalled
  • Prayer of the petition for recall of sequestration refused