Contact our debt recovery specialists. Call 0141 331 2332Please note, we may record calls for monitoring and training purposes.
Contact our debt recovery specialists. Call 0141 331 2332Please note, we may record calls for monitoring and training purposes.
Uncontested liquidation petitions do not really “excite”. In fact, they follow a well-trodden path of a petition to the court, prior to which the debtor company’s insolvency will have been established usually following an expired statutory demand for payment or a charge for payment (the first stage of Scottish enforcement) following on from a court’s decree.
Not so, in the case of FF v AFMS Ltd. In Sheriff McCormick’s decision of 9 July 2020, the Sheriff took the unusual step of dismissing an undefended petition.The reason for this was that the petitioning creditor was represented by what the Sheriff had been told was a solicitor. However, the individual concerned did not have a practicing certificate. Because of this, the Sheriff decided that the petition was incompetent. Apparently a “Mr. M” both signed and served the statutory demand upon which the petition was based as a “solicitor” when, in fact, he was not.
In addition to the debtor company’s name being misspelt in the demand, upon enquiry by the court, “M” said that he had been a solicitor for some years previously and was now practicing as a “commercial attorney”. Upon further enquiry, “M”, conceded that he misunderstood what the terms of being a registered “commercial attorney” were. Despite this, he still thought that it was competent for him to sign the writ for the debtor company’s liquidation.
Needless to say, the Sheriff was not amused. And, even though the debtor company had failed to respond to the statutory demand “because there were issues with its competency”, all that followed from it was flawed and, as a result, incompetent. In the Sheriff’s opinion:
“This case raises public protection issues. I will not ignore that. The court and each party to a litigation is entitled to expect a representative lodging a writ is qualified to do so. After vacillating on his status, Mr. M claims that he is.”
The Sheriff continued to say that “M”’s status was important because, for example, if expenses were awarded against him personally, as agent for the petitioning creditor, and he was a solicitor, the protection which otherwise would have been available to the general public would be inaccessible.
Rehearsing some aspects why it was important that a party’s representative should be adequately regulated, the Sheriff said:
“Solicitors with practicing certificates spend time and expense in continuing professional development and, where events go awry, their regulatory professional body and insurers provide a route for the aggrieved. Standards are thereby maintained. The same may not be said about those trading in a misleading veneer of competence, status and public confidence, which the selective use of a professional title “solicitor” engenders all whilst choosing not to maintain a practicing certificate ( with accompanying regulation and public protection)”.
It will come as no surprise, then, that the Sheriff dismissed the petition as he held it to be incompetent.
Yuill + Kyle are an extremely focused firm who are achieving great results for us north of the border. Their client-focused staff keep us 'in the loop' so we are able to make timely decisions, helping us to recover more of our money.
I would not hesitate to recommend Yuill + Kyle's services to other business colleagues. I recently sent Yuill + Kyle's pre-sue letter to 2 debtors. Within 2 days of Yuill + Kyle sending these letters one of the debtors paid his £560 and the other his £750, all for the fee of a 7 day letter!
I instructed Yuill & Kyle to send a pre-sue letter to my debtor. This resulted in the debtor paying their outstanding £2750. We also received a letter of apology from them!! Great result!!
I have to say that Yuill + Kyle have represented my best experience to date with solicitors, and although I was unable to take this matter further on this occasion I would have no hesitation in using you again or recommending you to others.
I would really like to recommend your services to everyone considering litigation. Your online service is fast, efficient and easy to use. We found that your costs are simply unbeatable for pre-litigation and I feel sure that when we require legal support, Yuill + Kyle will be our first choice.
Yuill + Kyle successfully recovered £19,000 for our client. We were delighted with their professionalism and fully intend to use them again in the future.
"Stephen Cowan displays calm equanimity in the face of challenging, complex and often adversarial situations, and responds quickly and professionally."
Contact our debt recovery specialists.Call 0141 331 2332
Legal changes can have a dramatic impact on you and your business. To ensure you are kept up to date with the latest developments and have the knowledge to make timely, effective decisions, please sign up for our free updates.