LORD WALLACE OF TANKERNESS QC THE ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTY'S REVENUE AND CUSTOMERS AGAINST JAMES KING [2015] ScotSC 10 (28 January 2015)

LORD WALLACE OF TANKERNESS QC THE ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTY'S REVENUE AND CUSTOMERS AGAINST JAMES KING [2015] ScotSC 10 (28 January 2015)

The sheriff erred in dismissing the petition due to an incompetent continuation; the proper course was to award sequestration as the statutory requirements were satisfied and the respondent was not prejudiced by the procedural irregularity.

Citation
[2015] ScotSC 10
Parties
Petitioner and Appellant: Lord Wallace of Tankerness Q.C., The Advocate General for Scotland, for and on behalf of The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs; Respondent: James King
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
28 January 2015
Procedural Posture
Petition for Sequestration / Appeal Against Dismissal of Petition
Outcome
appeal allowed; sheriff's interlocutor recalled; sequestration awarded
Legal Topics
Sequestration, Apparent Insolvency, Procedural Competence, Continuation of Proceedings, Expenses
Bankruptcy Insolvency Sequestration Apparent Insolvency Procedural Competence Continuation of Proceedings Expenses

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lord Wallace of Tankerness Q.C., The Advocate General for Scotland, for and on behalf of The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Petitioner and Appellant

James King

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Petition for Sequestration / Appeal Against Dismissal of Petition

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sheriff erred in dismissing the petition for sequestration after an incompetent continuation
  2. 2 Whether sequestration should be awarded despite procedural irregularity

Ratio Decidendi

The sheriff erred in dismissing the petition due to an incompetent continuation; the proper course was to award sequestration as the statutory requirements were satisfied and the respondent was not prejudiced by the procedural irregularity.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed; sheriff's interlocutor recalled; sequestration awarded

Orders

  • Recall of sheriff’s interlocutor of 18 December 2014
  • Award of sequestration of James King’s estate