Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Printer Friendly Version
Philip Knight of Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP looks at the recent Scottish case of The Provisional/Interim Liquidator of Equal Exchange Trading Limited which gives guidance in respect of the role of the court reporter when fixing the remuneration of a liquidator.
Lord Bannatyne has issued his opinion in respect of the note of The Provisional/Interim Liquidator of Equal Exchange Trading Limited  CSOH 35 which gives guidance in respect of the role of the court reporter when fixing the remuneration of a liquidator. The full opinion can be viewed here:
This case will be unwelcome news for insolvency practitioners in Scotland and would appear to give a wider remit to the court reporter than previously envisaged. As demonstrated in this case, even where the liquidator is ultimately awarded their remuneration, it opens up the prospect of a personal award of expenses against the liquidator despite there being no breach of any duty.
By way of background, where there is no liquidation committee, the task of auditing accounts and fixing the amount of the outlays and remuneration payable to the liquidator falls to the court. The court usually appoints a court reporter to carry out this task.
In this matter, the liquidator presented her account for remuneration and as is usual practice, the court appointed a court reporter to audit the liquidators accounts. The court reporter raised a number of concerns in respect of the actings of the liquidator and recommended that the court decline to fix remuneration until the liquidator had addressed said concerns in order to ensure that the body of creditors was not affected by the alleged failures of the liquidator. The liquidator lodged a written response to the various concerns raised by the court reporter.
The most recent judicial guidance in respect of the role of a court reporter was issued by Sheriff Jamieson in S & M Livestock Limited (In Liquidation) 2017 SC DUMF 78. The sheriff stated that the court reporter’s duty was to merely “audit” the accounts by checking that the time charges were justified by file entries and records. The sheriff stated that neither the reporter nor the court in this kind of process should seek to second guess the actings of the liquidator.
However, Lord Bannatyne disagreed with this approach and was of the view that the court reporter should report concerns to the court otherwise the court could not fulfil its duties in relation to the fixing of a liquidator's remuneration. Lord Bannatyne stressed that while a court reporter may disagree with the course of action followed by a liquidator that does not of itself make the acting unreasonable and therefore something which should be raised with the court as a concern.
Such concerns might include:
After hearing counsel and the liquidator personally, Lord Bannatyne was satisfied with the liquidator’s responses to the concerns of the court reporter and as such awarded the remuneration albeit found the liquidator personally liable for the expenses rather than form an expense of the liquidation.
Court: Outer House, Court of Session
Judge: Lord Bannatyne
Date of judgment: 11 April 2018
The views expressed by our Legal Analysis interviewees are not necessarily those of the proprietor.
0330 161 1234