Registrar Of Companies v. Stonelee Developments Ltd [2004] ScotSC 38 (28 May 2004)

Registrar Of Companies v. Stonelee Developments Ltd [2004] ScotSC 38 (28 May 2004)

The period between 30 September 2002 and 31 December 2002 is exactly three months; applying the corresponding date rule, the penalty remains at £100 as the documents were delivered within three months after the due date. The sheriff was entitled to interpret section 242A(2) and apply the corresponding date rule to determine the correct penalty.

Citation
[2004] ScotSC 38
Parties
Pursuer and Appellant: Registrar of Companies; Defenders and Respondents: Stonelee Developments Ltd
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
28 May 2004
Procedural Posture
Small Claim Appeal / Appeal From Sheriff's Interlocutor
Outcome
appeal refused
Legal Topics
Late Filing of Accounts, Statutory Penalties, Interpretation of Time Periods, Application of Corresponding Date Rule
Company Law Civil Procedure Late Filing of Accounts Statutory Penalties Interpretation of Time Periods Application of Corresponding Date Rule

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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Registrar of Companies

Pursuer and Appellant

Stonelee Developments Ltd

Defenders and Respondents

Procedural Posture

Small Claim Appeal / Appeal From Sheriff's Interlocutor

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sheriff was entitled to raise issues of law not noted at the hearing under rule 9.2(3)(a) of the Small Claim Rules 2002
  2. 2 Proper calculation of the penalty period under section 242A(2) of the Companies Act 1985
  3. 3 Correct application of the corresponding date rule to determine penalty escalation

Ratio Decidendi

The period between 30 September 2002 and 31 December 2002 is exactly three months; applying the corresponding date rule, the penalty remains at £100 as the documents were delivered within three months after the due date. The sheriff was entitled to interpret section 242A(2) and apply the corresponding date rule to determine the correct penalty.

Court Disposition

appeal refused

Orders

  • answers question 3 in the stated case in the affirmative
  • finds it unnecessary to answer questions 1 and 2