Russell v. Van Overwaele [2005] ScotSC 15 (02 March 2005)

No stateable or sound defence based on Article 8 ECHR or proportionality was advanced, as there were no specific allegations of improper conduct by the trustee; the explanation for failure to enter appearance was unimpressive and unsatisfactory; therefore, the appeal must be refused and the sheriff's decision adhered to.

Citation: [2005] ScotSC 15
Parties: Pursuer/respondent: Cameron K Russell C. A.; Defender/appellant: Marion Van Overwaele
Jurisdiction: Scotland
Judgment Date: 02 March 2005
Procedural Posture: Civil Appeal (bankruptcy/sequestration) / Appeal Against Refusal of Reponing Note
Outcome: Appeal refused; sheriff's interlocutor adhered to.
Legal Topics: Reponing Note, Article 8 ECHR, Proportionality, Bankruptcy (scotland) Act 1985, Trustee's Duties, Expenses of Sequestration

Bankruptcy Human Rights Reponing Note Article 8 ECHR Proportionality Bankruptcy (scotland) Act 1985 Trustee's Duties Expenses of Sequestration

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 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9

Parties

Cameron K Russell C. A.

Pursuer/respondent

Marion Van Overwaele

Defender/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (bankruptcy/sequestration) / Appeal Against Refusal of Reponing Note

Legal Issues

1 Whether the defender/appellant advanced a stateable defence based on Article 8 ECHR and proportionality to justify recall of decree in absence
2 Whether the explanation for failure to enter appearance was satisfactory

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Appeal refused; sheriff's interlocutor adhered to.

Orders

Refuses the appeal and adheres to the interlocutor of the sheriff dated 4 September 2003.
Certifies the appeal as suitable for the employment of junior counsel.