Bank Of Scotland v Reid & Anor [2000] ScotCS 161 (13 June 2000)

Bank Of Scotland v Reid & Anor [2000] ScotCS 161 (13 June 2000)

The defenders' averments regarding adequate consideration, assets exceeding liabilities, and personal bar, though sparse and of doubtful relevancy in parts, are sufficient to entitle them to a proof before answer. The pursuers' second plea-in-law is repelled, and the case proceeds to proof on the statutory defences.

Citation
[2000] ScotCS 161
Parties
Pursuer: The Governor and Company of the Bank of Scotland; First Defender: Alexander Reid; Second Defender: Jill Alexandra Reid
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
13 June 2000
Procedural Posture
Civil / Debate on Relevancy and Statutory Defences Prior to Proof Before Answer
Outcome
Proof before answer allowed; pursuers' second plea-in-law repelled; question of expenses reserved.
Legal Topics
Gratuitous Alienation, Challengeable Transactions, Adequate Consideration, Assets Exceeding Liabilities, Personal Bar, Assignation of Lease
Bankruptcy Property Law Civil Procedure Gratuitous Alienation Challengeable Transactions Adequate Consideration Assets Exceeding Liabilities Personal Bar +1 more

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Governor and Company of the Bank of Scotland

Pursuer

Alexander Reid

First Defender

Jill Alexandra Reid

Second Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Debate on Relevancy and Statutory Defences Prior to Proof Before Answer

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the assignation of the lease by the first defender to the second defender constituted a gratuitous alienation challengeable under Section 34 of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985
  2. 2 Whether adequate consideration was given for the assignation
  3. 3 Whether the first defender's assets exceeded his liabilities after the assignation

Ratio Decidendi

The defenders' averments regarding adequate consideration, assets exceeding liabilities, and personal bar, though sparse and of doubtful relevancy in parts, are sufficient to entitle them to a proof before answer. The pursuers' second plea-in-law is repelled, and the case proceeds to proof on the statutory defences.

Court Disposition

Proof before answer allowed; pursuers' second plea-in-law repelled; question of expenses reserved.

Orders

  • Repel pursuers' second plea-in-law.
  • Allow proof before answer on defenders' averments of adequate consideration, assets exceeding liabilities, and personal bar.