BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?

No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!



BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

Scottish Court of Session Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Petition - Hume [1876] ScotLR 13_570 (27 June 1876)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1876/13SLR0570.html
Cite as: [1876] SLR 13_570, [1876] ScotLR 13_570

[New search] [Contents list] [Printable PDF version] [Help]

SCOTTISH_SLR_Court_of_Session

Page: 570↓

Court of Session Inner House First Division.

Tuesday, June 27. 1876.

13 SLR 570

Petition—Hume.

Subject_1Expenses
Subject_2Petition
Subject_325 and 26 Vict. cap. 89, secs. 82 and 92.
Facts:

On the application of a creditor of a company for a judicial winding-up under 25 and 26 Vict. cap. 89, with suggestion of an official liquidator, the directors of the company lodged answers merely for the purpose of suggesting another person as liquidator.— Held that the respondents were only entitled to the expenses of appearance by counsel to make a statement at the bar.

Headnote:

This was a petition presented to the Court under the Companies Act 1862 (25 and 26 Vict. cap. 89) for the winding-up of the Highland Peat Fuel Company, Limited. The petitioner was a creditor for the amount of £545, 7s. 5d. constituted by a promissory note which fell due on 19th January 1875. The company were charged to make payment thereof to the petitioner, and on the expiry of the induciœ of the charge he presented this petition in terms of the 80th and 82d sections of the Act of 1862, and suggested Mr T. A. Molleson, C. A., as liquidator to be appointed under the 92d section of the said Act. Answers to this petition were lodged by the directors of the Company, in which they stated that a majority of the shareholders were in favour of the appointment of Mr J. H. Balgarnie, C.A. as liquidator. They had no other objections to the petition.

Mr F. B. Anderson, C: A. was appointed liquidator by the Court.

When the Auditor's report came up—

 Judgment:

The Lord President said—These claims for expenses are very important in the administration of the law under the Companies Acts, and I am extremely anxious that everything should be regularly done, so as to establish a fixed rule. There can be no doubt that the petitioner is entitled to the taxed amount of his expenses out of the estate, because the proceedings initiated by him have enured to the benefit of the estate; but as regards the claim of the respondents, I think that they are not entitled to the taxed amount of their expenses as it is now before us. The only objection they had to the petitioner's application was to the name of the person suggested as liquidator. Now, it would have been quite sufficient that counsel should have appeared and stated their objection at the bar. If they had taken this course it is clear that the expenses would have been very much less. We must therefore send this account back to the Auditor to be taxed on this footing, that the respondents were only entitled to appear by counsel at the bar and make a verbal suggestion.

The Court pronounced the following interlocutor:—

“The Lords having considered the report on the account of expenses incurred by the petitioner William Hume, No. 108 of process, and heard counsel for him, Approve of the said report, taxing the said expenses at the sum of Fifty-five pounds nineteen shillings and elevenpence sterling, and appoint the said taxed amount of the said expenses to be paid out of the estate of the Highland Peat Fuel Company (Limited): And as regards the account of expenses incurred by the respondents, the Directors of the said Company, and John Baxter and Others, No. 109 of process, remit of new to the Auditor to tax the said account on the footing that the said respondents were not entitled to lodge answers for the purpose of stating their objection to the person proposed as liquidator in the petition, but were only entitled to appear by counsel on the calling of the petition, and object verbally to the appointment of the person so proposed, and to report.”

 Counsel:

Counsel for Petitioner— Pearson. Agents— Dove & Lockhart, S.S.C.

Counsel for Respondents— Strachan. Agent— G. C. Banks, S.S.C.

 1876

BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1876/13SLR0570.html