The law does not exist to benefit law firms.At BBM Solicitors, our clients always come first.

At BBM we exist solely for the benefit of our clients. We succeed when we make our clients happy - And we do that by building a close relationship; by managing their legal risks and resolving their legal headaches.

BBM Solicitors Blog

The latest legal news and updates from BBM Solicitors

More PPI issues (Continued)

Many practitioners will have seen our recent briefing on the cases of Doneen Limited v Mond and Donnelly v The Royal Bank of Scotland. Matters have developed further and not as insolvency practitioners would have liked.

Doneen Limited v Mond

On 20th July 2016 the Inner House of the Court of Session issued their decision in the appeal. In short, the insolvency practitioner contended that Lord Jones had been wrong to hold that the debtor’s discharge terminated the trust and reinvested the debtor in unrealised estate (including PPI compensation). The Inner House disagreed. The Lord Justice Clerk delivered the opinion of the court and held that Lord Jones was correct. Amongst other points, the court held that a trust deed was different from a statutory process such as sequestration, distinguishing the case we have previously mentioned Whyte v Northern Heritable Securities. The Inner House’s approach was to analyse the construction of the wording of the trust deed. They were in no doubt that in the present case “discharge” meant termination of the trust and reinvestment in the debtor of unrealised estate.
This judgement has the potential to create a number of difficulties; not least that creditors will not be entitled to share in PPI compensation in such cases. Subject to permission being granted we understand it may yet be appealed to the UK Supreme Court. However, given that we understand the English approach may well be similar in relation to individual voluntary arrangements as the one the Inner House has taken, it is by no means certain that the position will change. At this stage, the positon therefore is that in trust deeds with wording in the same terms to the Mond appeal, discharge will mean termination.


Donnelly v The Royal Bank of Scotland

It remains to be seen how the Donnelly litigation will now proceed in light of the Mond decision. However, the Sheriff Appeal Court recently refused a joint motion to remit the case to the Court of Session. A full judgment may therefore follow in due course.


Conclusion

It will be necessary for insolvency practitioners to examine the particular wording of trust deeds. However, if wording matches the wording in the Mond appeal, it is difficult to see, unless there is a successful appeal to the UK supreme court, how it will be possible for trust deed cases to be reopened where the debtor has been discharged.  This briefing note is current as at 25th July 2016 and is our understanding of the position described at that date. Legal advice ought to be taken before relying on its terms (particularly to ensure the law has not changed).

Contact our Insolvency Solicitors in Edinburgh Today

BBM Solicitors specialise in advising IP's in both contentious and non-contentious matters (including transactional work). Contact: Eric Baijal () or Sheana Campbell (). Contact us today via our online contact form to arrange an appointment.

Heads of Terms: Enforceable or Not?
IP Briefing: William Cleghorn as trustee in the se...

Contact us

Let us know a few details to work out how best to help you
Please let us know your name.
Please let us know your email address.
Invalid Input
Invalid Input
Please let us know your message.
Please tick the box below
Invalid Input
Invalid Input

      instagram logo 01