The Accountant In Bankruptcy Against Leigh Dorothy Reid Or Urquhart
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judge | Sheriff R B Weir QC |
| Neutral Citation | [2019] SC EDIN 23 |
| Court | Sheriff Court |
| Date | 13 March 2019 |
| Docket Number | A61/15 |
| Published date | 19 March 2019 |
1
SHERIFFDOM OF LOTHIAN AND BORDERS AT EDINBURGH
[2019] SC EDIN 23
A61/15
JUDGMENT OF SHERIFF R B WEIR QC
in the cause
THE ACCOUNTANT IN BANKRUPTCY
Pursuer
against
LEIGH DOROTHY REID or URQUHART
Defender
Pursuer: Ower, Advocate: Harper Macleod LLP
Defender: Anderson, Advocate: RSC Solicitors
EDINBURGH, 13 March 2019
The Sheriff, having resumed consideration of the cause;
(i) sustains the third plea-in-law for the pursuer to the extent of excluding from
probation (a) in answer 4, p 7, between lines 30 and 35, the sentence commencing with
the words “Explained and averred that having regard…”, and (b) the final sentence of
answer 5;
(ii) quoad ultra allows parties, before answer, a proof of their respective averments, and
appoints the cause to a procedural hearing, on a date to be afterwards fixed, in order
that dates, and preparations, for a diet therefor can be fixed and considered;
(iii) reserves meantime the question of expenses of the debate, and appoints parties to
be heard thereon at Edinburgh Sheriff Court on a date to coincide with the procedural
hearing appointed in terms of sub-paragraph (ii) hereof.
2
Note
Introduction
[1] The pursuer is the Trustee on the sequestrated estate of James Urquhart (“the
debtor”). The defender and the debtor formerly lived together as husband and wife, and
resided latterly at 31 Craigentinny Avenue, Edinburgh (“the subjects”). They separated on
or around 1 October 2007. It is a matter of admission by the defender that, following the
separation, the subjects were sold at a price of £285,000, leaving a balance available to the
debtor and the defender, after deduction of mortgage, debts, marketing and conveyancing
costs, of £131,512. It is also admitted that, in circumstances which I will come on to consider,
the defender benefitted in the full net free proceeds of the sale of the subjects.
[2] In the present action the pursuer challenges the manner in which the free proceeds of
sale of the subjects were dealt with. He contends that the receipt by the defender of the
whole of the sale proceeds amounted to a challengeable alienation in terms of section 34 of
the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 (“the 1985 Act”), being the relevant legislation where the
affairs of the debtor’s sequestration are concerned, and seeks redress under section 34(4) of
the 1985 Act, amounting to the debtor’s share of those sale proceeds. The defender avers,
broadly, that the debtor received adequate consideration for his share of the proceeds of sale
of the subjects. In any event, she maintains that immediately, or at any other time, after the
alienation the debtor’s assets were greater than his liabilities. Accordingly, the remedy
sought by the pursuer should be refused.
[3] The case called before me for debate on the pursuer’s general plea to the relevancy of
the defences. I heard argument over a period of two days and made avizandum.
To continue reading
Request your trial