Advocate General for Scotland v Reilly & Anor [2011] ScotCS CSOH_141 (19 August 2011)

Advocate General for Scotland v Reilly & Anor [2011] ScotCS CSOH_141 (19 August 2011)

The court held that Aqua Seal IT Ltd went into insolvent liquidation, Aquaseal UK Ltd was a prohibited name, the first defender was a director of both companies within the relevant period without leave of the court, and the debts claimed were established and unpaid. The first defender's arguments did not raise any defence that could succeed at proof. Summary decree was granted in terms of conclusions 4 to 8.

Citation
[2011] ScotCS CSOH_141
Parties
Pursuer: Advocate General for Scotland for and on behalf of the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs; First Defender: Thomas Reilly; Second Defender: Stephen Reilly
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
19 August 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil / Motion for Summary Decree
Outcome
summary decree granted in terms of conclusions 4 to 8; first defender's pleas-in-law repelled to that extent
Legal Topics
Director Liability, Prohibited Company Names, Personal Liability for Company Debts, Summary Decree

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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Advocate General for Scotland for and on behalf of the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

Pursuer

Thomas Reilly

First Defender

Stephen Reilly

Second Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Motion for Summary Decree

  1. 1 Whether Aqua Seal IT Ltd went into insolvent liquidation
  2. 2 Whether Aquaseal UK Ltd is a prohibited name under Insolvency Act 1986 s.216
  3. 3 Whether the first defender is personally liable for debts of Aquaseal UK Ltd under s.217

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that Aqua Seal IT Ltd went into insolvent liquidation, Aquaseal UK Ltd was a prohibited name, the first defender was a director of both companies within the relevant period without leave of the court, and the debts claimed were established and unpaid. The first defender's arguments did not raise any defence that could succeed at proof. Summary decree was granted in terms of conclusions 4 to 8.

Court Disposition

summary decree granted in terms of conclusions 4 to 8; first defender's pleas-in-law repelled to that extent

Orders

  • summary decree for payment of sums concluded for in conclusions 4 to 8
  • matter of expenses put out by order for discussion