Scottish Court of Session Decisions

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> The London County and Westminster Bank, Ltd Petitioners [1911] ScotLR 884 (28 June 1911)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1911/48SLR0884.html
Cite as: [1911] ScotLR 884, [1911] SLR 884

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

SCOTTISH_SLR_Court_of_Session

Page: 884↓

Court of Session Inner House First Division.

(Single Bills.)

Wednesday, June 28. 1911.

48 SLR 884

The London County and Westminster Bank, Limited Petitioners.

Subject_1process
Subject_2Vacation
Subject_3Bill Chamber
Subject_4Petition — Company — Statute — Companies (Consolidation) Act 1908 (8 Edw. VII, cap. 69), sec. 135.
Facts:

The Companies (Consolidation) Act 1908, sec. 135, enacts—“The Court having jurisdiction to wind up companies registered in Scotland shall be the Court of Session in either Division thereof, or in the event of a remit to a permanent Lord Ordinary, that Lord Ordinary during session, and in time of vacation the Lord Ordinary on the Bills.”

In a petition for the winding up of a limited company under the above section, held (1) that a special adjournment of the Court on account of His Majesty's coronation was equivalent to vacation, and (2) that the Lord Ordinary on the Bills had therefore jurisdiction to entertain the petition.

Headnote:

The London County and Westminster Bank, Limited, presented a petition under the Companies (Consolidation) Act 1908 (8 Edw. VII, cap. 69), for the winding up of D. C. Paton & Company, Limited. In consequence of His Majesty's coronation the Court of Session was adjourned from Wednesday, 21st June, to Saturday, 24th June, both days inclusive, and the petition was therefore brought before the Lord Ordinary on the Bills ( Skerrington), on 23rd June 1911, who pronounced an order for intimation, service, and advertisement. The petitioners being doubtful as to the jurisdiction of the Lord Ordinary on the Bills in the matter, repeated their motion on Wednesday, 28th June, at the resumed sittings of the Court.

Judgment:

Lord President—This is a petition for the winding up of a limited company, and it was presented last week to the Lord Ordinary on the Bills when the Court was not sitting. The Lord Ordinary considering that he had jurisdiction made an order for intimation and service, but ob majorem cautelam that order is asked again to-day. Now the jurisdiction of the Lord Ordinary on the Bills depends on sec. 135 of the Companies (Consolidation) Act 1908, which is as follows — … [ .] … Now it is put forward that the words “in time of vacation” are conditioned by the preceding words “in the event of a remit.” I think that is an unnatural and inconvenient construction and that the words “in time of vacation” are dependent on the principal subject of the clause, viz., “the Court of Session in either Division thereof.” That being so, the only question is whether last week was vacation. I think it was, and that it must be treated in the same way as the Christmas recess. Accordingly I think we ought to refuse the motion as unnecessary.

Lord Johnston—I concur.

Lord Mackenzie—I also agree.

Lord Kinnear was absent.

The Court refused the motion.

Counsel:

Counsel for Petitioners— MacRobert. Agents— Hope, Todd, & Kirk, W.S.
1911

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