Joseph Alexander Sweeney In Relation To The Winding Up Of West Larkin Limited
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judge | Lady Wolffe |
| Neutral Citation | [2020] CSOH 6 |
| Docket Number | P345/19 |
| Date | 14 January 2020 |
| Court | Court of Session |
| Published date | 14 January 2020 |
OUTER HOUSE, COURT OF SESSION
[2020] CSOH 6
P345/19
OPINION OF LADY WOLFFE
In the Note
JOSEPH ALEXANDER SWEENEY
Noter
for
orders in terms of section 148(1) and 167(3) of the Insolvency Act 1986 in relation to the
winding up of
WEST LARKIN LIMITED
Noter: O’Brien; TLT LLP
Third Respondent: Sandison QC; Currie Gilmour & Co
14 January 2020
Background
Liquidation of the Company, the Property and the parties to this Note
[1] On 12 December 2018 this Court directed that West Larkin Limited (“the Company”)
be wound up and it appointed Alexander Iain Fraser as interim Liquidator (“the
Liquidator”). The Liquidator is called as the second respondent to this Note. The
Company’s only asset is a parcel of agricultural property (“the Property”) which has been
productive of a large number of disputes and lengthy litigations between members of
Sweeney and Urquhart families since about the late 1990s.
2
[2] This is the second note presented in this liquidation by a member of the Sweeney
family. The first note was presented by Theresa Donalda Sweeney (“Mrs Sweeney”), the
mother of the Noter in this Note, Joseph Alexander Sweeney (“Mr JA Sweeney” or “the
Noter”). I shall refer to the first Note presented by Mrs Sweeney as “Note 1” and the Note
presented by Mr JA Sweeney as “Note 2” or “this Note”, as the context requires. Defined
terms have the same meaning in both Notes. The third respondent in this Note is Amanda
Urquhart (who was the creditor in the judgment debt enforced against the Company).
Orders the Noter seeks
[3] Put shortly, by this Note the Noter seeks to have himself recognised as a member of
the Company and to have the Liquidator directed to bring a challenge to the registration of a
“notice of interest” of the third respondent (and her mother) qua tenants of an agricultural
tenancy to acquire the Property under section 25 of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act
2003 (“the Notice” and “the 2003 Act”, respectively). ( While there are ancillary disputes
about the validity of one or all of the three notices the third respondent has registered under
the 2003 Act, for ease of reference I shall simply refer to the latest one as “the Notice”,
without prejudice to any arguments about the validity of it or any earlier notice.) If
effective, a notice under section 25 of the 2003 Act creates a statutory right of pre-emption in
favour of the tenant or tenants who registered the notice of interest (per sections 26 and 28 of
the 2003 Act), subject to any challenge by the landlord to the notice (as provided for under
section 25(8) of the 2003 Act) and provided that the notice has not lapsed (see section 25(12)
of the 2003 Act).
[4] The status in which the Noter ostensibly presents this Note is as a person entitled to
be recognised as a member of the Company. (That is greatly to simplify the background:
To continue reading
Request your trial
1 cases
-
Club Los Claveles v First National Trustee Company Ltd
...have no title to sue. The Lord Ordinary held that there was a validly constituted club committee in terms of the club's constitution ([2020] CSOH 6). Accordingly, the defenders must demit office on the terms set out in a draft deed of retirement which has been lodged in process. [3] The pri......