HM Secretary State Trade Industry v. Walker [2004] ScotCS 25 (03 February 2004)

HM Secretary State Trade Industry v. Walker [2004] ScotCS 25 (03 February 2004)

The pleadings, though untidy and prolix, provide sufficient notice of the matters relied upon to infer unfitness, and the absence of specific reference to the statutory schedule does not render the petition irrelevant. The delay in proceedings does not breach Article 6(1) ECHR in the circumstances, as the case is complex, both parties contributed to the delay, and the process is protective rather than punitive.

Citation
[2004] ScotCS 25
Parties
Petitioner: Her Majesty's Secretary of State for Trade and Industry; Respondent: Alexander Macbean Walker
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
03 February 2004
Procedural Posture
Petition for Disqualification Order / Interlocutory Decision on Relevancy and Human Rights Argument
Outcome
Proof allowed; all pleas standing; no dismissal at this stage.
Legal Topics
Director Disqualification, Company Insolvency, Fiduciary Duties, Human Rights (article 6 Echr)
Company Law Civil Procedure Director Disqualification Company Insolvency Fiduciary Duties Human Rights (article 6 Echr)

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty's Secretary of State for Trade and Industry

Petitioner

Alexander Macbean Walker

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Petition for Disqualification Order / Interlocutory Decision on Relevancy and Human Rights Argument

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pleadings disclose a relevant case for a disqualification order under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986
  2. 2 Whether the delay in proceedings breaches Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights

Ratio Decidendi

The pleadings, though untidy and prolix, provide sufficient notice of the matters relied upon to infer unfitness, and the absence of specific reference to the statutory schedule does not render the petition irrelevant. The delay in proceedings does not breach Article 6(1) ECHR in the circumstances, as the case is complex, both parties contributed to the delay, and the process is protective rather than punitive.

Court Disposition

Proof allowed; all pleas standing; no dismissal at this stage.

Orders

  • Allow proof of the respective averments of parties.
  • All pleas to stand at this stage.