Registrar Of Companies v. Stonelee Properties Ltd [2004] ScotSC 39 (28 May 2004)

Registrar Of Companies v. Stonelee Properties Ltd [2004] ScotSC 39 (28 May 2004)

The period between 30 September 2002 and 31 December 2002 is exactly three months, not more than three months, so the appropriate penalty is £100. The sheriff was entitled to interpret the statutory provision and determine the correct penalty, regardless of whether the issue was explicitly noted at the hearing.

Citation
[2004] ScotSC 39
Parties
Pursuer and Appellant: Registrar of Companies; Defenders and Respondents: Stonelee Properties Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
28 May 2004
Procedural Posture
Appeal by Way of Stated Case (small Claim) / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal refused
Legal Topics
Late Filing of Company Accounts, Statutory Penalties, Interpretation of Time Periods, Application of Corresponding Date Rule
Company Law Civil Procedure Late Filing of Company 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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Registrar of Companies

Pursuer and Appellant

Stonelee Properties Limited

Defenders and Respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal by Way of Stated Case (small Claim) / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the correct calculation of the penalty period under section 242A(2) of the Companies Act 1985 for late filing of accounts?
  2. 2 Was the sheriff entitled to raise and decide issues of law not noted at the hearing under the Small Claim Rules 2002?

Ratio Decidendi

The period between 30 September 2002 and 31 December 2002 is exactly three months, not more than three months, so the appropriate penalty is £100. The sheriff was entitled to interpret the statutory provision and determine the correct penalty, regardless of whether the issue was explicitly noted at the hearing.

Court Disposition

appeal refused

Orders

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