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.

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 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.