Forth Shipbreaking Co., Ltd, and Others Petitioners [1924] ScotLR 371 (08 March 1924)
The Court refused to exercise its nobile officium to declare the dissolution void because the ordinary law provided a remedy, and the case was not materially different from Macdonald's Curator Bonis, where similar relief was refused.
- Citation
- [1924] ScotLR 371
- Parties
- Petitioner: Forth Shipbreaking Company, Limited (old company); Petitioner: John Taylor Tulloch (liquidator of new company); Petitioner: William Fulton Andrew (surviving liquidator of old company)
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judgment Date
- 08 March 1924
- Procedural Posture
- Petition / Judgment on Application to Nobile Officium
- Outcome
- petition refused
- Legal Topics
- Company Dissolution, Voluntary Liquidation, Heritable Property Transfer, Nobile Officium, Statutory Time Limits
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Forth Shipbreaking Company, Limited (old company)
Petitioner
John Taylor Tulloch (liquidator of new company)
Petitioner
William Fulton Andrew (surviving liquidator of old company)
Petitioner
Procedural Posture
Petition / Judgment on Application to Nobile Officium
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Court should exercise its nobile officium to declare a company dissolution void after the statutory period to allow transfer of heritable property not formally conveyed before dissolution.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court refused to exercise its nobile officium to declare the dissolution void because the ordinary law provided a remedy, and the case was not materially different from Macdonald's Curator Bonis, where similar relief was refused.
Court Disposition
petition refused
Orders
- Petition to declare dissolution void and authorise liquidator to grant titles refused.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment