BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Scottish Court of Session Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> M'Cardle, Petitioner [1906] ScotLR 43_282 (24 January 1906) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1906/43SLR0282.html Cite as: [1906] ScotLR 43_282, [1906] SLR 43_282 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 282↓
(See ante, January 13, 1906, 43 S.L.R. 268.)
In a petition appropriated by statute to the Junior Lord Ordinary, a Junior Lord Ordinary intimated that having acted as counsel in the cause he desired not to exercise jurisdiction; and the Lord President transferred the cause to another Lord Ordinary.
Held (after consultation with the Judges of the Second Division) (1) that the Lord President had power so to transfer the cause under sec. 1 of the Court of Session Act 1857 (Distribution of Business Act) and (2) that on the appointment of a new Junior Lord Ordinary the cause did not revert to him unless re-transferred.
The Court of Session Act 1857 (Distribution of Business Act) (20 and 21 Vict. cap. 56) in sec. 1 enacts—“It shall be lawful for the Lord President of the Court of Session from time to time, as it shall appear to him to be necessary or expedient with a view to promote the due despatch of the business of the Court, to transfer causes from one Division of the Court to the other, and from any one Lord Ordinary to any other Lord Ordinary, to such extent as he shall judge to be necessary or expedient, for the purpose of promoting despatch and preventing delay.…”
Section 4 provides—“All summary petitions and applications to the Lords of Council and Session which are not incident to actions or causes actually depending at the time of presenting the same shall be brought before the Junior Lord Ordinary officiating in the Outer House, who shall deal therewith and dispose thereof as to him shall seem just; and in particular all petitions and applications falling under any of the descriptions following shall be so enrolled before and dealt with and disposed of by the Junior Lord Ordinary, and shall not be taken in the first instance before either of the two Divisions of the Court viz., (1) … (2) … (3) … (4) … (5) …”
The Act of Sederunt of 25th November 1857 regulates the procedure of judicial factors under the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1856 (19 and 20 Vict. cap. 79). In its 29th sec. it provides — “All proceedings which in this Act are appointed to take place by or before the Court shall, although the same be addressed to the Lords of Council and Session, be brought before, dealt with and disposed of by the Junior Lord Ordinary officiating in the Outer House, or by the Lord Ordinary officiating on the Bills in time of vacation, subject to the review of the Inner House, in conformity with the 4th sec. of the statute 20 and 21 Vict. cap. 56.
The Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1856 (19 and 20 Vict. cap. 79), sec. 164, inter alia, provides—“It shall be competent to one or more creditors of parties deceased to the amount of £100, or to persons having an interest in the succession of such parties, in the event of the deceased having left no settlement appointing trustees or other parties having power to manage his estate or part thereof … to apply by summary petition to either Division of the Court for the appointment of a judicial factor and … the Court may appoint such factor.…”
The Clerks of Session Regulation Act 1889 (52 and 53 Vict. cap. 54), sec. 3, provides—“… All summary petitions and applications which are at present under the provisions of sec. 4 of” the Court of Session Act 1857 “appropriated to the Junior Lord Ordinary, shall … be presented and disposed of in the Bill Chamber, … and such applications may be made and petitions presented and disposed of and orders pronounced thereon at all times by the Junior Lord Ordinary in Session and by the Lord Ordinary on the Bills in vacation, provided that nothing herein contained shall affect the form of such applications and petitions, or of the interlocutors to be pronounced therein, or the preparation of extracts of decrees pronounced therein,
Page: 283↓
or shall increase or alter the powers presently possessed during vacation by the Lord Ordinary on the Bills, who shall have the same powers, including that of reporting to the Inner House, as are at present exercised by the Junior Lord Ordinary.” In 1899 Mrs Ellen Mullin or M'Cardie presented a petition under sec. 164 of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1856, in which she sought the appointment of a judicial factor on the estate of her deceased husband, the late James M'Cardie of Carnlough, in the county of Antrim, and 129 Trongate, Glasgow, and under it J. M. M'Leod, C. A., Glasgow, was duly appointed judicial factor. By the Act of Sederunt of 25th November 1857 ( supra) the petition was appropriated to the Junior Lord Ordinary, who at the time of its being presented was Lord Pearson. During the proceedings following on the petition Lord Pearson was succeeded in the position of Junior Lord Ordinary by several successive Judges, before each of whom the cause from time to time came. When Lord Salvesen was appointed Junior Lord Ordinary he intimated to the Lord President his disinclination to act as Judge in the cause because he had formerly acted as counsel for one of the parties, and the Lord President therefore on 7th November 1905 transferred the cause to Lord Johnston. On Lord Mackenzie succeeding Lord Salvesen as Junior Lord Ordinary a minute was lodged by the petitioner declining the jurisdiction of Lord Johnston.
Lord Johnston reported the cause to the First Division.
Argued for the petitioner—This case fell to be dealt with by the Junior Lord Ordinary under sec. 29 of the Act of Sederunt of 1857, following on the Bankruptcy Act of 1856. The case had been treated as a Bill Chamber case. That appeared not only from the way it had been treated but from the notice of the transfer, for that notice was of a transfer of Bill Chamber causes. It was not a Bill Chamber cause but a Court of Session cause appropriated by the Act of Sederunt to the Junior Lord Ordinary. The only reason for dealing with it in the manner applicable to a Bill Chamber cause was because of the provisions of sec. 29 of the Act of Sederunt 25th November 1857, sec. 4 of the Distribution of Business Act 1857, and sec. 3 of the Clerks of Session Regulation Act 1889. The transfer was not one under the Distribution of Business Act. It had nothing to do with the distribution of business, but was for a reason personal to the Judge from whom it was transferred. It was simply giving effect to Lord Salvesen's declinature— Moubray's Trustees v. Moubray, January 10, 1883, 10 R. 400. Whether the transfer was properly effected or not at the beginning the personal reason for declinature had ceased to exist through the appointment of a new Junior Lord Ordinary, and the case therefore must go before him.
Counsel for the judicial factor was not called on.
The second point is whether this case should not now go back to the Junior Lord Ordinary, a new appointment having been made to that office, and the present holder of it not being subject to the personal disqualification which attached to Lord Salvesen. It is urged that it should go back on the ground that causes which are approbated to the Junior Lord Ordinary should be disposed of by him unless there be some existing reason for them being otherwise dealt with. This is not one of the causes enumerated in sec. 4 of the Distribution of Business Act as falling to be dealt with by the Junior Lord Ordinary, for it has its genesis under the Bankruptcy Act, but then the Act of Sederunt of 25th November 1857 provides that such petitions shall be disposed of by the Junior Lord Ordinary “in conformity with the 4th section” of the Distribution of Business Act. I do not doubt, therefore, that this is a case appropriated to the Junior Lord Ordinary, and that it falls under the general phraseology of sec. 4. But it seems to me that when a statute provides that a petition shall come before the Junior Lord Ordinary it means that it shall do so subject to the general incidents and powers which exist as to the jurisdiction of the Junior Lord Ordinary, and one of these incidents and powers is that the Lord President may transfer the cause to some other Judge if he should think fit, and that it remains before that Judge until it is taken away again. In this instance I see no reason why it should be taken away, but every reason Why it should remain. It is before a Judge who is competent to try it,
Page: 284↓
I would add that I do not think that litigants have any right to interfere with the distribution of business. The duty of the Lord President in these matters is not primarily to the litigant but to the general public, and his duty is to promote the due fespatch of the business of the Court. I therefore think that this is not a matter on which the litigant should be heard at all, for he has no right in these circumstances to choose the Judge before whom he desires his case to be heard. This case is at present before Lord Johnston, and what I have to say to him in answer to the question raised by his report is that it will remain with him, as I have no intention of retransferring it.
The Court, without issuing an interlocutor, intimated that the petition remained before Lord Johnston.
Counsel for the Petitioner — Dickson, K.C.—Findlay. Agents— Gill & Pringle, W.S.
Counsel for the Judicial Factor— Wilson, K.C.—Horne. Agents— Bell, Bannerman, & Finlay, W.S.
