Scottish Court of Session Decisions

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Liquidators of Employers' Assurance Co. of Great Britain [1897] ScotLR 35_641 (18 December 1897)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1897/35SLR0641.html
Cite as: [1897] ScotLR 35_641, [1897] SLR 35_641

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

SCOTTISH_SLR_Court_of_Session

Page: 641↓

Court of Session Outer House.

Saturday, December 18. 1897.

[ Lord Stormonth Darling.

35 SLR 641

Liquidators of Employers' Assurance Company of Great Britain.

Subject_1Process
Subject_2Expenses
Subject_3Company
Subject_4Liquidation — Expenses of Double Agency.
Facts:

The liquidator of a company is not entitled to allow the expenses of the attendance of both Edinburgh and local agents at a discussion in the court of session unless there are special reasons for double attendance.

Headnote:

This was a note by the liquidators of the Employers' Assurance Company of Great Britain, objecting to a report by the Auditor of the Court of Session under the following circumstances:—In the course of the liquidation the Glasgow agents of the liquidators had on their instructions attended a discussion in the Court of Session. It was also attended by the Edinburgh agents. In their accounts the liquidators charged the expenses of the attendance both of the Edinburgh and of the Glasgow agents. The Auditor disallowed the charge for the Glasgow agents, and the present note was presented for authority to make that charge.

Judgment:

Lord Stormonth Darling—I have disallowed what is practically an appeal from the Auditor as regards a fee to the Glasgow agents of the liquidators for attending a debate in this Court, because I think the Auditor's rule, which (he tells me) has prevailed in his office for many years, is a salutary one. Liquidators are really in the position of trustees, and though it may be a satisfaction to them to have their local agents in attendance on judicial proceedings in Edinburgh, and though they may give instructions accordingly, it does not follow that the trust-estate should bear the cost of double agency. In the present case I agree with the Auditor that there were no special reasons for allowing such a charge.

Counsel:

Counsel for the Liquidators— Lorimer. Agents— Melville & Lindesay, W.S.
1897

About BAILII - FAQ - Copyright Policy - Disclaimers - Privacy Policy amended on 25/11/2010