The question of who is entitled to payment of compensation for PPI where a debtor has been discharged from his/her Protected Trust Deed (PTD) has given rise to conflicting judicial decisions in Scotland. In our previous article, we highlighted the uncertainty created following the decision of Sheriff Reid in the case of Donnelly v The Royal Bank of Scotland and the decision of Lord Jones in Dooneen Limited, t/a Mcginnes Associates and Douglas Davidson v David Mond.

The case of Hull v Campbell serves as a reminder of an outmoded debt recovery procedure that needs to be modernised.

Introduction

Against the backdrop of the recent sheriff court decisions regarding the need to appoint a Court Reporter even in cases where the assets are insufficient to meet the IPs' fees, the Court of Session has taken an innovative approach to approving IP fees without the need to appoint a court reporter.

Background

The Bankruptcy and Diligence (Scotland) Act 2007contains a wide range of provisions affecting personal insolvency and various forms of diligence for enforcing civil obligations. Many of the provisions that relate to Inhibitions – which apply to heritable property - will come into force on 22 April 2009. Generally these reforms are to be welcomed.

An inhibition enables a creditor to prevent a debtor from transferring ownership of any of the debtor’s heritable property located in Scotland, or granting a security over it while the debt remains outstanding.

Philip Bell v Philip Long, Andrew Thomson, PKF and Weatherall Green & Smith (North) Limited [2008] EWHC 1273 (Ch)

Background

The receiver's duty to exercise care in disposing of the company's assets and to ensure he obtains the best price reasonably obtainable at the time of sale was considered recently in the English case of Bell v Long & Others.

The recent downturn in the economy is undoubtedly having an adverse effect on the cash flows of a large number of businesses in the UK. Businesses are keeping a much closer eye on outgoings and expenses, and may be looking to ease financial pressure by making payments due to creditors as late as possible.

For a business operating from leased premises, quarterly rental payments are likely to be one of the biggest outgoings. The longer the rental payment remains in the tenant's bank account, the more interest they will accrue and the more likely that cash flow issues will be eased.

The subject of gratuitous alienations is a problematic area for the property practitioner. Timing is all-important, and often it only becomes an issue for insolvency reasons retrospectively. Put simply of course, in lay terms a gratuitous alienation is no more than a gift, and there is nothing to prevent an owner of property gifting it to someone if he chooses.

It is over 10 years since the House of Lords decision in the case of Sharp v Thomson (1997 SC (HL) 44) threw a judicial cat amongst the pigeons of property and insolvency law in Scotland. The House of Lords, overturning decisions of both the Outer and Inner Houses of the Court of Session, decided that ownership of a property passed unencumbered by, in this case, a crystallised floating charge, even though the disposition of that property (which had been delivered before the floating charge crystallised) had not yet been registered in the Property Register.

In a recent decision issued by Lord Drummond Young, one of the Scottish insolvency judges in the Court of Session, useful guidance has been issued which will be of interest to practitioners having to deal with the, not uncommon, situation of a retiring practitioner and replacement with a current partner in the same firm.