ADVOCATE GENERAL v. WALTER DICKIE [2010] ScotSC 148 (28 August 2010)

ADVOCATE GENERAL v. WALTER DICKIE [2010] ScotSC 148 (28 August 2010)

The respondent had only offered, not given, security, and there was no certainty that sufficient security existed or that payment of the debt was in prospect. Therefore, the statutory requirement for sufficient security under section 12(3A) was not met, and sequestration was granted.

Citation
[2010] ScotSC 148
Parties
Petitioner: Advocate General; Respondent: Walter Dickie
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
28 August 2010
Procedural Posture
Sequestration Petition / Judgment on Petition for Sequestration
Outcome
sequestration granted
Legal Topics
Sequestration, Sufficient Security, Bankruptcy (scotland) Act 1985 Section 12(3 A)
Bankruptcy Insolvency Sequestration Sufficient Security Bankruptcy (scotland) Act 1985 Section 12(3 A)

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Advocate General

Petitioner

Walter Dickie

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Sequestration Petition / Judgment on Petition for Sequestration

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent had shown sufficient security for payment of the debt under section 12(3A) of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 so as to prevent sequestration.

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent had only offered, not given, security, and there was no certainty that sufficient security existed or that payment of the debt was in prospect. Therefore, the statutory requirement for sufficient security under section 12(3A) was not met, and sequestration was granted.

Court Disposition

sequestration granted

Orders

  • Sequestration of the respondent awarded.