Russell, Trustee on the Sequestrated Estates of Hoblyn v. Hoblyn [2006] ScotSC 61 (07 May 2006)

Russell, Trustee on the Sequestrated Estates of Hoblyn v. Hoblyn [2006] ScotSC 61 (07 May 2006)

The appeal was competent as the order was ad factum praestandum, but the debtor failed to prove the car's value at the date of sequestration or that it was a tool of trade within the statutory meaning; thus, the exemption did not apply and the appeal was refused.

Citation
[2006] ScotSC 61
Parties
Pursuer/respondent: Cameron King Russell, permanent trustee on the sequestrated estates of Mrs Joan Hoblyn; Defender/appellant: Mrs Joan Hoblyn
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
07 May 2006
Procedural Posture
Sequestration Appeal / Appeal From Sheriff to Sheriff Principal
Outcome
appeal refused
Legal Topics
Sequestration, Tools of Trade Exemption, Appeal Competency, Valuation Date for Assets
Bankruptcy Insolvency Civil Procedure Sequestration Tools of Trade Exemption Appeal Competency Valuation Date for 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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cameron King Russell, permanent trustee on the sequestrated estates of Mrs Joan Hoblyn

Pursuer/respondent

Mrs Joan Hoblyn

Defender/appellant

Procedural Posture

Sequestration Appeal / Appeal From Sheriff to Sheriff Principal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sheriff's order requiring delivery of a motor car is appealable without leave under section 27(b) of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1907
  2. 2 Whether the debtor is entitled to exemption of the motor car under section 11(1)(b) of the Debt Arrangement and Attachment (Scotland) Act 2002 as applied by section 33(1)(a) of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was competent as the order was ad factum praestandum, but the debtor failed to prove the car's value at the date of sequestration or that it was a tool of trade within the statutory meaning; thus, the exemption did not apply and the appeal was refused.

Court Disposition

appeal refused

Orders

  • Refuses the appeal
  • Adheres to the interlocutor of the sheriff dated 31 January 2006