Parkes v. Cintec International Ltd+ & Anor [2005] ScotCS CSOH_98 (26 July 2005)

Parkes v. Cintec International Ltd+ & Anor [2005] ScotCS CSOH_98 (26 July 2005)

The petitioner's averments were irrelevant to the statutory requirements for recall of sequestration, and there was no material before the court to justify exercising discretion under section 17(1) of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985. The petitioner failed to provide security or pay the debt, and the freezing order did not prevent compliance. The sequestration was properly awarded and should not be recalled.

Citation
[2005] ScotCS CSOH_98
Parties
Petitioner: John Parkes; First Respondents: Cintec International Ltd; Second Respondents: The Accountant in Bankruptcy
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
26 July 2005
Procedural Posture
Debtor's Petition for Recall of Sequestration / Hearing on Petition and Answers Before Outer House, Court of Session
Outcome
Petition refused
Legal Topics
Recall of Sequestration, Apparent Insolvency, Freezing Order, Security for Debt, Discretion Under Bankruptcy (scotland) Act 1985
Insolvency Bankruptcy Civil Procedure Recall of Sequestration Apparent Insolvency Freezing Order Security for Debt Discretion Under Bankruptcy (scotland) Act 1985

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 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Parkes

Petitioner

Cintec International Ltd

First Respondents

The Accountant in Bankruptcy

Second Respondents

Procedural Posture

Debtor's Petition for Recall of Sequestration / Hearing on Petition and Answers Before Outer House, Court of Session

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the petitioner's averments are relevant to recall sequestration
  2. 2 Whether the court should exercise discretion to recall sequestration under section 17(1) of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985

Ratio Decidendi

The petitioner's averments were irrelevant to the statutory requirements for recall of sequestration, and there was no material before the court to justify exercising discretion under section 17(1) of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985. The petitioner failed to provide security or pay the debt, and the freezing order did not prevent compliance. The sequestration was properly awarded and should not be recalled.

Court Disposition

Petition refused

Orders

  • Sustained respondents' pleas on the merits
  • Refused the prayer of the petition