Bell v, Re Application For Recall Of Sequestration & Answers For McMillan & Anor [1999] ScotCS 107 (6 May 1999)

Bell v, Re Application For Recall Of Sequestration & Answers For McMillan & Anor [1999] ScotCS 107 (6 May 1999)

The court found no valid argument or statutory basis to support recall of sequestration; previous arguments had been considered and rejected. No flaws were identified in the interlocutor of 29 January 1999. The reclaiming motion was refused and expenses awarded against Mr. Bell.

Citation
[1999] ScotCS 107
Parties
Petitioner: James Bell; Respondents: William Alister McMillan and Another
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
06 May 1999
Procedural Posture
Reclaiming Motion Against Interlocutor in Petition for Recall of Sequestration / Appeal
Outcome
reclaiming motion refused
Legal Topics
Recall of Sequestration, Expenses, Procedural Flaws

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

Parties

James Bell

Petitioner

William Alister McMillan and Another

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Reclaiming Motion Against Interlocutor in Petition for Recall of Sequestration / Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the sequestration of Mr. Bell was based upon fundamental flaws
  2. 2 Whether the interlocutor of 29 January 1999 was flawed
  3. 3 Whether the proceedings were vitiated by deception or taint

Ratio Decidendi

The court found no valid argument or statutory basis to support recall of sequestration; previous arguments had been considered and rejected. No flaws were identified in the interlocutor of 29 January 1999. The reclaiming motion was refused and expenses awarded against Mr. Bell.

Court Disposition

reclaiming motion refused

Orders

  • expenses awarded against petitioner
  • remit to Accountant of Court