Reid & Laidlaw, Ltd v. Reid [1905] ScotLR 42_344 (26 January 1905)

Reid & Laidlaw, Ltd v. Reid [1905] ScotLR 42_344 (26 January 1905)

No concluded compromise existed because the agreement was expressly conditional on court approval and an accurate statement of affairs. The liquidator retained locus pænitentiæ and was entitled to refuse to seek court sanction in light of creditor objections and counsel's advice. The liquidator was not personally barred from proceeding with the action.

Citation
[1905] ScotLR 42_344
Parties
Pursuer: Reid & Laidlaw, Limited; Pursuer: William Robertson (liquidator of Reid & Laidlaw, Limited); Defender: John Reid
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
26 January 1905
Procedural Posture
Company Liquidation Action / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) Against Lord Ordinary's Interlocutor
Outcome
defender's reclaiming motion refused; interlocutor of Lord Ordinary adhered to
Legal Topics
Powers of Liquidator, Compromise of Claims, Court Supervision of Liquidation, Personal Bar, Locus Pænitentiæ
Company Law Insolvency Law Powers of Liquidator Compromise of Claims Court Supervision of Liquidation Personal Bar Locus Pænitentiæ

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Reid & Laidlaw, Limited

Pursuer

William Robertson (liquidator of Reid & Laidlaw, Limited)

Pursuer

John Reid

Defender

Procedural Posture

Company Liquidation Action / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) Against Lord Ordinary's Interlocutor

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a liquidator is personally barred from insisting on an action after negotiating a compromise subject to court approval but refusing to seek such approval following creditor objections.
  2. 2 Whether a concluded compromise exists when agreement is expressly subject to court sanction and further conditions.

Ratio Decidendi

No concluded compromise existed because the agreement was expressly conditional on court approval and an accurate statement of affairs. The liquidator retained locus pænitentiæ and was entitled to refuse to seek court sanction in light of creditor objections and counsel's advice. The liquidator was not personally barred from proceeding with the action.

Court Disposition

defender's reclaiming motion refused; interlocutor of Lord Ordinary adhered to

Orders

  • repel defender's third plea-in-law
  • allow proof of parties' averments