MALCOLM INSULATION SUPPLIES LIMITED v. FRASER JAMES GRAY [2012] ScotSC 121 (31 December 2012)

MALCOLM INSULATION SUPPLIES LIMITED v. FRASER JAMES GRAY [2012] ScotSC 121 (31 December 2012)

Combination of appeals in a single note is competent; noters have sufficient pecuniary interest as members to appeal; liquidator bound by decree where opportunity to defend was given; appeals against BPB claim refused, AMS and Interact claims allowed to enquiry, RHPUT claim deferred pending outcome of related Court of Session action.

Citation
[2012] ScotSC 121
Parties
Noters: Malcolm Insulation Supplies Limited; Respondent: Fraser James Gray
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
31 December 2012
Procedural Posture
Liquidation Appeal / Post Debate, Procedural Hearing Appointed
Outcome
First and second pleas in law for respondent repelled; proof before answer allowed for AMS and Interact claims; BPB appeal refused; RHPUT claim deferred; procedural hearing appointed.
Legal Topics
Liquidation Claims, Appeal Competency, Title to Sue, Pecuniary Interest, Admission of Claims
Insolvency Company Law Liquidation Claims Appeal Competency Title to Sue Pecuniary Interest Admission of Claims

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Malcolm Insulation Supplies Limited

Noters

Fraser James Gray

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Liquidation Appeal / Post Debate, Procedural Hearing Appointed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether multiple appeals in a single note are competent under rule 25
  2. 2 Whether noters have title to sue based on pecuniary interest
  3. 3 Whether liquidator's admission of claims can be challenged by members

Ratio Decidendi

Combination of appeals in a single note is competent; noters have sufficient pecuniary interest as members to appeal; liquidator bound by decree where opportunity to defend was given; appeals against BPB claim refused, AMS and Interact claims allowed to enquiry, RHPUT claim deferred pending outcome of related Court of Session action.

Court Disposition

First and second pleas in law for respondent repelled; proof before answer allowed for AMS and Interact claims; BPB appeal refused; RHPUT claim deferred; procedural hearing appointed.

Orders

  • Proof before answer allowed for AMS and Interact claims
  • Motion to amend note B by deleting admission regarding BPB defence allowed