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.
Parties
James Bell
Petitioner
William Alister McMillan and Another
Respondents
Procedural Posture
Reclaiming Motion Against Interlocutor in Petition for Recall of Sequestration / Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sequestration of Mr. Bell was based upon fundamental flaws
- 2 Whether the interlocutor of 29 January 1999 was flawed
- 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
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment