Leslie, Liquidator of 3G Design Engineering Ltd v White [2013] ScotCS CSIH_20 (01 March 2013)

Leslie, Liquidator of 3G Design Engineering Ltd v White [2013] ScotCS CSIH_20 (01 March 2013)

Mr White's averments, if proved, could bring the transaction within the statutory exemption for transactions in the ordinary course of business under section 243(2)(a) of the Insolvency Act 1986; therefore, the case cannot be disposed of on relevancy alone and requires proof before answer.

Citation
[2013] ScotCS CSIH_20
Parties
Pursuer and Respondent: Maureen Leslie, Liquidator of 3G Design Engineering Ltd; Defender and Reclaimer: Alistair White
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
01 March 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil (company Liquidation) / Reclaiming Motion (appeal) From Lord Ordinary's Interlocutor After Debate on Pleadings
Outcome
Reclaiming motion allowed; interlocutor of Lord Ordinary recalled; proof before answer allowed; expenses of reclaiming motion and debate awarded to Mr White.
Legal Topics
Unfair Preference, Director's Loan Repayment, Ordinary Course of Business, Challengeable Transactions, Liquidation Proceedings
Insolvency Law Company Law Unfair Preference Director's Loan Repayment Ordinary Course of Business Challengeable Transactions Liquidation Proceedings

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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maureen Leslie, Liquidator of 3G Design Engineering Ltd

Pursuer and Respondent

Alistair White

Defender and Reclaimer

Procedural Posture

Civil (company Liquidation) / Reclaiming Motion (appeal) From Lord Ordinary's Interlocutor After Debate on Pleadings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether repayment of £9,000 to director on day of insolvency resolution was an unfair preference under section 243 of the Insolvency Act 1986
  2. 2 Whether the transaction was in the ordinary course of business and thus exempt under section 243(2)(a)

Ratio Decidendi

Mr White's averments, if proved, could bring the transaction within the statutory exemption for transactions in the ordinary course of business under section 243(2)(a) of the Insolvency Act 1986; therefore, the case cannot be disposed of on relevancy alone and requires proof before answer.

Court Disposition

Reclaiming motion allowed; interlocutor of Lord Ordinary recalled; proof before answer allowed; expenses of reclaiming motion and debate awarded to Mr White.

Orders

  • Recall interlocutor of Lord Ordinary dated 26 July 2012
  • Remit to Lord Ordinary to allow proof before answer in relation to the liquidator's second and third conclusions