MACALLANS, SHEENA DIANE ADAM AND IAN GRANT AGAINST W BURRELL HOMES Ltd AND BRIAN ANTHONY MCCARDLE AND DOMINIC MARTIN SWEENEY [2016] ScotSC 79 (22 November 2016)

MACALLANS, SHEENA DIANE ADAM AND IAN GRANT AGAINST W BURRELL HOMES Ltd AND BRIAN ANTHONY MCCARDLE AND DOMINIC MARTIN SWEENEY [2016] ScotSC 79 (22 November 2016)

The claims of the second and third defenders are incompetent because they are neither direct claims upon the fund in medio nor do they qualify as riding claims. The company, to which the fund belongs, has not claimed upon the fund, and the alleged creditor claims are unconstituted. Shareholders have no direct right to company assets in this context.

Citation
[2016] ScotSC 79
Parties
Pursuers & Real Raisers: MACALLANS, SHEENA DIANE ADAM and IAN GRANT; First Defender: W BURRELL HOMES LIMITED; Second Defender: BRIAN ANTHONY MCCARDLE; Third Defender: DOMINIC MARTIN SWEENEY
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
22 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Multiplepoinding / Judgment After Second Debate on Competency of Claims
Outcome
Both claims repelled as incompetent.
Legal Topics
Multiplepoinding, Competency of Claims, Shareholder Rights, Creditor Claims, Company Assets
Civil Procedure Company Law Multiplepoinding Competency of Claims Shareholder Rights Creditor Claims Company Assets

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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MACALLANS, SHEENA DIANE ADAM and IAN GRANT

Pursuers & Real Raisers

W BURRELL HOMES LIMITED

First Defender

BRIAN ANTHONY MCCARDLE

Second Defender

DOMINIC MARTIN SWEENEY

Third Defender

Procedural Posture

Multiplepoinding / Judgment After Second Debate on Competency of Claims

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claims of the second and third defenders upon the fund in medio are competent in a multiplepoinding action
  2. 2 Whether such claims qualify as direct or riding claims
  3. 3 Whether shareholders or alleged creditors of a company can claim directly on company assets in a multiplepoinding

Ratio Decidendi

The claims of the second and third defenders are incompetent because they are neither direct claims upon the fund in medio nor do they qualify as riding claims. The company, to which the fund belongs, has not claimed upon the fund, and the alleged creditor claims are unconstituted. Shareholders have no direct right to company assets in this context.

Court Disposition

Both claims repelled as incompetent.

Orders

  • Adjusted claims of the second and third defenders upon the fund in medio are repelled.
  • Issue of expenses reserved.