Unity Trust Bank Plc v. Frost & Ors [2004] ScotCS 123 (27 April 2004)

Unity Trust Bank Plc v. Frost & Ors [2004] ScotCS 123 (27 April 2004)

The motion to sist the action was refused because the case had a ten-year history and continuing the motions to a fixed date would ensure progress and accountability regarding the sequestration process.

Citation
[2004] ScotCS 123
Parties
Pursuer: Unity Trust Bank Plc; First Defender: Martin Frost; Second Defender: Linda Stewart Anderson or Frost; First Defender's Interim Trustee: Mr McGregor (Interim Trustee)
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
27 April 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Hearing on Motions; Consideration of Sequestration Impact and Continuation of Motions
Outcome
Motion to sist refused; consideration of pursuers' motions continued to 8 June 2004.
Legal Topics
Sequestration, Summary Decree, Sist of Action, Trustee Powers
Bankruptcy Civil Procedure Sequestration Summary Decree Sist of Action Trustee Powers

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Unity Trust Bank Plc

Pursuer

Martin Frost

First Defender

Linda Stewart Anderson or Frost

Second Defender

Mr McGregor (Interim Trustee)

First Defender's Interim Trustee

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Hearing on Motions; Consideration of Sequestration Impact and Continuation of Motions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to sist (stay) the action due to the first defender's sequestration
  2. 2 Whether to continue pursuers' motions for summary decree and incorporation of answers to a later date

Ratio Decidendi

The motion to sist the action was refused because the case had a ten-year history and continuing the motions to a fixed date would ensure progress and accountability regarding the sequestration process.

Court Disposition

Motion to sist refused; consideration of pursuers' motions continued to 8 June 2004.

Orders

  • Refused motion to sist the action.
  • Continued consideration of pursuers' motions for summary decree and incorporation of answers to 8 June 2004.