Scottish Court of Session Decisions

Lord Justice-Clerk—I do not think this was a case in which answers should have been lodged. The parties should simply have appeared at the bar and stated the facts. I do not think that in this case there is any reason to suppose Mr Miller, who is the nominee of a large majority of the creditors of this company, will do otherwise than discharge his duties properly, and I am therefore for granting the prayer of the note.

Lord Dundas—I concur.

Lord Salvesen—I think what we have chiefly to regard is the desire of those who are most interested in the realisation of the assets of this company, and Mr Garson's clients are in that position. They include nearly three-fourths of the unsecured creditors, and they accordingly have an interest in securing the best possible price for the assets. So far as Mr Fraser represents unsecured creditors, his interests are identical. I agree with your Lordship that answers ought not to have been lodged, and that any objections to the appointment of the liquidator proposed should simply have been stated at the bar. It is very desirable in liquidations that all unnecessary expense should be avoided when parties are attempting to induce the Court to appoint a neutral liquidator because an objection of some kind is taken to the nominee of the majority of the creditors. Objection to receive effect should be of a tangible or definite nature, and nothing that is not of that nature should be put forward.

Lord Guthrie—I agree. I think the objections to Mr Miller's appointment are too vague and unspecific to receive effect.