Cintec International Ltd, Re Sequestration [2006] ScotSC 47 (12 May 2006)

Cintec International Ltd, Re Sequestration [2006] ScotSC 47 (12 May 2006)

The permanent trustee's decision not to realise the sequestrated estate while a reduction action is pending is not so unreasonable or absurd as to justify court interference under section 3(7); the high threshold for intervention is not met.

Citation
[2006] ScotSC 47
Parties
Noters/creditors: Cintec International Ltd; Permanent Trustee: Accountant in Bankruptcy; Debtor: John Humphrey Parkes
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
12 May 2006
Procedural Posture
Sequestration (bankruptcy) Proceedings / Application Under Section 3(7) of the Bankruptcy (scotland) Act 1985 for Directions to Permanent Trustee
Outcome
Application refused; first plea-in-law for Noters repelled; second crave dismissed; case continued for hearing on expenses.
Legal Topics
Trustee's Duties, Court Directions to Trustee, Sequestration, Reduction of Sequestration, Bias and Recusal
Insolvency Bankruptcy Trustee's Duties Court Directions to Trustee Sequestration Reduction of Sequestration Bias and Recusal

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cintec International Ltd

Noters/creditors

Accountant in Bankruptcy

Permanent Trustee

John Humphrey Parkes

Debtor

Procedural Posture

Sequestration (bankruptcy) Proceedings / Application Under Section 3(7) of the Bankruptcy (scotland) Act 1985 for Directions to Permanent Trustee

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the permanent trustee's inaction in realising the sequestrated estate justifies a court direction under section 3(7) of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985
  2. 2 Whether the sheriff should recuse himself for alleged bias
  3. 3 What is the correct legal test for court interference with trustee's discretion

Ratio Decidendi

The permanent trustee's decision not to realise the sequestrated estate while a reduction action is pending is not so unreasonable or absurd as to justify court interference under section 3(7); the high threshold for intervention is not met.

Court Disposition

Application refused; first plea-in-law for Noters repelled; second crave dismissed; case continued for hearing on expenses.

Orders

  • First plea-in-law for Noters repelled
  • Second crave of the Note dismissed