DOCSLIB.ORG

CLAJ Adverse Possession Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
CLAJ Adverse Possession Report PP 2021/0106 CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL AFFAIRS AND JUSTICE COMMITTEE SECOND REPORT FOR THE SESSION 2020-21 Adverse Possession CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL AFFAIRS AND JUSTICE COMMITTEE SECOND REPORT FOR THE SESSION 2020-21 ADVERSE POSSESSION There shall be a Committee on Justice, Constitutional and Legal Affairs which shall be a Standing Committees of the Court. It shall be entitled to take evidence from witnesses and to report on matters as they affect the Island relating to the administration of justice, legal services, the work of the Attorney General and constitutional issues. It may also hold joint sittings with other Committees for deliberative purposes or to take evidence. The Committee shall have: a) a Chairman elected by Tynwald, b) two other Members. Members of Tynwald shall not be eligible for membership of the Committee, if, for the time being, they hold any of the following offices: President of Tynwald, member of the Council of Ministers, Attorney General, member of the Treasury Department referred to in section 1(2)(b) of the Government Departments Act 1987. The Committee shall be authorised to require the attendance of Ministers for the purpose of assisting the Committee. The powers, privileges and immunities relating to the work of a committee of Tynwald include those conferred by the Tynwald Proceedings Act 1876, the Privileges of Tynwald (Publications) Act 1973, the Tynwald Proceedings Act 1984, and by the Standing Orders of Tynwald Court. Committee Membership Mrs J P Poole-Wilson MLC (Chairman) Mr L L Hooper MHK (Ramsey) Mr C R Robertshaw MHK (Douglas East) Copies of this Report may be obtained from the Tynwald Library, Legislative Buildings, Finch Road, Douglas, IM1 3PW (Tel: 01624 685520) or may be consulted at www.tynwald.org.im All correspondence with regard to this Report should be addressed to the Clerk of Tynwald, Legislative Buildings, Finch Road, Douglas, Isle of Man, IM1 3PW. IN TYNWALD 5th July 2019 To the Honourable Members of the Tynwald Court The humble petition of Mark Jason Cleator Lyonville Stuggadhoo Marown Isle of Man IM4 2AJ Sheweth that Whereas the Manx Government, in failing to adopt The Land Registration Act 2002 as enacted by the UK Government has enabled vexatious and regular application of the law known as Adverse Possession (the occupation of land to which another person has title with the intention of possessing it as one's own), resulting in the legalised theft of land. As demonstrated below, in 1984 the Isle of Man Attorney General concluded that the limitation period for land applies equally to land which is the subject of a trust. The Manx Government, by accepting this opinion without performing further checks as to wider implications (through considering the position of the adjacent Isle or any of the other common law jurisdictions) did fail to ensure the fairness of the relevant Acts of Tynwald. An Act of Tynwald, which enables a person to claim Adverse Possession of land held under a trust, against a life tenant who is not factually in possession of the land, is simply wrong. Similarly, an Act of Tynwald which enables the confiscation of land held in trust on behalf of children or others using Adverse Possession, by implying that the limitation period has run even before the children or others had actually taken possession of their property is also clearly injudicious and in want of reform. The Isle of Man Limitation Act 1984 has allowed just such situations to arise, and this has enabled the theft of property from rightful owners or their heirs and assigns. It is not possible to protect the assets and interests of said persons and consequentially their rightful property is stolen with the Isle of Man Government's agreement and consent. The failure of the Isle of Man Government to ensure the protection of the Manx people has and will continue to lead to property of rightful owners being acquired by others through the use of such Acts of Tynwald and the Manx Courts. It is also the case that as the UK law, which prevents the adverse possession of land which is held in trust does not apply on the Isle of Man, such omission is causing clear and continuous hardship. In addition, Article 1, Protocol 1 of the European Court of Human Rights states that "every person has the right to the peaceful enjoyment of their property". The omissions of the Isle of Man Limitation Act 1984 allows property to be taken away from rightful owners, thereby preventing any aforementioned peaceful enjoyment. 2 The Differences Between English and Manx Property Law in Relation to Adverse Possession The Land Registration Act 2002 (UK) paragraph 12a reads as follows: "A person is not to be regarded as being in adverse possession of an estate for the purposes of this Schedule at any time when the estate is subject to a trust..." In the UK no adverse possession can be claimed whilst a life tenant was in occupation and the ultimate beneficial owner had not yet come into possession. This position is covered by section 18 of the Limitation Act 1980 (of Parliament) which makes this position clear and intentional. The above rules were not introduced in the Isle of Man to the Manx Limitation Act of 1984. On the contrary, section 18 of that Act states: "The right of action to recover land shall be treated as accruing to a person entitled to an equitable interest in the same manner, and from the same date, as it would accrue if they held a legal interest." Therefore, the position in England and Wales is significantly different from that here, Adverse Possession may run from any time, even if there is a trustee or life tenant in control of the said land that only comes into possession as its beneficial owner at a later date. It is clear that this is the intended interpretation of section 18 (of the Manx Act) when looking at the Hansard of the Legislative Council on 10 April 1984 during the clauses stage. The then Attorney General, discussing adverse possession generally, stated: `It should be noted that in Manx law future estates, that is, the right which a person might have to inherit property following a life interest, are barred after 21 year's possession, except as against the Crown. This clause makes no special provision for future interests in land. In other words, translating that into very simple terms, f a person had been in occupation ofland for 21 years without permission of the owner of the land, then their title becomes absolute and any one who had any claims to any interest in that land loses them. ' The Attorney General went on to state that `Clause 18 provides that the limitation periodfor land applies equally to interest in land which is the subject to trusts'. In saying this, the Attorney General advised the Council that it was acceptable for Manx Law to run differently to the safe and carefully considered position adopted under English law. The principle of Adverse Possession allows land to be claimed by a squatter, under certain strict circumstances. The UK rule, discussed in detail at the Lords Hansard text of 19th July 2001, is designed to ensure that those who have no control over land that they will ultimately own cannot lose entitlement whilst it is held in trust for them. The Isle of Man offers no such protection, and therefore the Adverse Possession rule is wide open to abuse generally on the Island, and indeed is being used by wealthy individuals in a way that was presumably never intended. Adverse possession regulations should at the very least match those in the UK and, where any ambiguity is identified, title should always remain with the paper owner. and Whereas also Legal expenses - in particular once a case is heard before a court - are extremely high. It has become common practice for the art of filibustering and the overwhelming of the courts and others to be exercised by a wealthy party, thus effectively exponentially increasing costs. This practice ultimately leads to considerable hardship on the side of the less wealthy party, to a point where it is not possible to protect himself against further litigation if money runs out, [Signed by Mark Jason Cleator] Table of Contents I. THE COMMITTEE AND THE INQUIRY .............................................................. 1 THE INQUIRY 1 SUMMARY OF GRIEVANCE 2 II. THE LAW OF ADVERSE POSSESSION ............................................................... 3 OVERVIEW OF THE CURRENT LAW 3 The Isle of Man and Unregistered Land in England and Wales.......................................................3 Registered Land in England and Wales...........................................................................................5 Proposed Changes for the Isle of Man ............................................................................................8 Trust Land .....................................................................................................................................10 III. REGISTRATION OF LAND...............................................................................14 INCREASING REGISTRATION 17 IV. JUSTIFICATION AND HUMAN RIGHTS COMPLIANCE ......................................20 V. ISSUES OF COST............................................................................................22 COST OF LAND TRANSACTIONS 22 COST OF PROCEEDINGS 24 VI. QUALITY OF LEGAL SERVICES ........................................................................27 REGULATION AND COMPLAINTS 27 EDUCATION AND TRAINING 28 VII. CONSOLIDATED LIST OF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...............29 ANNEX: EXTRACTS OF MANX
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Common Law Fraud Liability to Account for It to the Owner
    FRAUD FACTS Issue 17 March 2014 (3rd edition) INFORMATION FOR ORGANISATIONS Fraud in Scotland Fraud does not respect boundaries. Fraudsters use the same tactics and deceptions, and cause the same harm throughout the UK. However, the way in which the crimes are defined, investigated and prosecuted can depend on whether the fraud took place in Scotland or England and Wales. Therefore it is important for Scottish and UK-wide businesses to understand the differences that exist. What is a ‘Scottish fraud’? Embezzlement Overview of enforcement Embezzlement is the felonious appropriation This factsheet focuses on criminal fraud. There are many interested parties involved in of property without the consent of the owner In Scotland criminal fraud is mainly dealt the detection, investigation and prosecution with under the common law and a number where the appropriation is by a person who of statutory offences. The main fraud offences has received a limited ownership of the of fraud in Scotland, including: in Scotland are: property, subject to restoration at a future • Police Service of Scotland time, or possession of property subject to • common law fraud liability to account for it to the owner. • Financial Conduct Authority • uttering There is an element of breach of trust in • Trading Standards • embezzlement embezzlement making it more serious than • Department for Work and Pensions • statutory frauds. simple theft. In most cases embezzlement involves the appropriation of money. • Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. It is important to note that the Fraud Act 2006 does not apply in Scotland (apart from Statutory frauds s10(1) which increases the maximum In addition there are a wide range of statutory Investigating fraud custodial sentence for fraudulent trading to offences which are closely related to the 10 years).
    [Show full text]
  • Bankruptcy and Diligence Etc. (Scotland) Act 2007 (Asp 3)
    Bankruptcy and Diligence etc. (Scotland) Act 2007 (asp 3) Bankruptcy and Diligence etc. (Scotland) Act 2007 2007 asp 3 CONTENTS Section PART 1 BANKRUPTCY Duration of bankruptcy 1 Discharge of debtor Bankruptcy restrictions orders and undertakings 2 Bankruptcy restrictions orders and undertakings Effect of bankruptcy restrictions orders and undertakings 3 Disqualification from being appointed as receiver 4 Disqualification for nomination, election and holding office as member of local authority 5 Orders relating to disqualification The trustee in the sequestration 6 Amalgamation of offices of interim trustee and permanent trustee 7 Repeal of trustee’s residence requirement 8 Duties of trustee 9 Grounds for resignation or removal of trustee 10 Termination of interim trustee’s functions 11 Statutory meeting and election of trustee 12 Replacement of trustee acting in more than one sequestration 13 Requirement to hold money in interest bearing account Debtor applications 14 Debtor applications 15 Debtor applications by low income, low asset debtors Jurisdiction 16 Sequestration proceedings to be competent only before sheriff ii Bankruptcy and Diligence etc. (Scotland) Act 2007 (asp 3) Vesting of estate and dealings of debtor 17 Vesting of estate and dealings of debtor Income received by debtor after sequestration 18 Income received by debtor after sequestration Debtor’s home and other heritable property 19 Debtor’s home and other heritable property Protected trust deeds 20 Modification of provisions relating to protected trust deeds Modification
    [Show full text]
  • Virginia Model Jury Instructions – Criminal
    Virginia Model Jury Instructions – Criminal Release 20, September 2019 NOTICE TO USERS: THE FOLLOWING SET OF UNANNOTATED MODEL JURY INSTRUCTIONS ARE BEING MADE AVAILABLE WITH THE PERMISSION OF THE PUBLISHER, MATTHEW BENDER & COMPANY, INC. PLEASE NOTE THAT THE FULL ANNOTATED VERSION OF THESE MODEL JURY INSTRUCTIONS IS AVAILABLE FOR PURCHASE FROM MATTHEW BENDER® BY WAY OF THE FOLLOWING LINK: https://store.lexisnexis.com/categories/area-of-practice/criminal-law-procedure- 161/virginia-model-jury-instructions-criminal-skuusSku6572 Matthew Bender is a registered trademark of Matthew Bender & Company, Inc. Instruction No. 2.050 Preliminary Instructions to Jury Members of the jury, the order of the trial of this case will be in four stages: 1. Opening statements 2. Presentation of the evidence 3. Instructions of law 4. Final argument After the conclusion of final argument, I will instruct you concerning your deliberations. You will then go to your room, select a foreperson, deliberate, and arrive at your verdict. Opening Statements First, the Commonwealth's attorney may make an opening statement outlining his or her case. Then the defendant's attorney also may make an opening statement. Neither side is required to do so. Presentation of the Evidence [Second, following the opening statements, the Commonwealth will introduce evidence, after which the defendant then has the right to introduce evidence (but is not required to do so). Rebuttal evidence may then be introduced if appropriate.] [Second, following the opening statements, the evidence will be presented.] Instructions of Law Third, at the conclusion of all evidence, I will instruct you on the law which is to be applied to this case.
    [Show full text]
  • The Positive Prescription of Servitudes in Scots Law
    This thesis has been submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for a postgraduate degree (e.g. PhD, MPhil, DClinPsychol) at the University of Edinburgh. Please note the following terms and conditions of use: This work is protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights, which are retained by the thesis author, unless otherwise stated. A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge. This thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the author. The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the author. When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given. The Positive Prescription of Servitudes in Scots Law Alasdair SS Peterson Presented for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of Edinburgh 2016 Abstract This thesis examines the establishment of servitudes by positive prescription in Scots law, with particular reference to the doctrine’s conceptual development and the nature of possession required under section 3 of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973. The thesis is divided into three main parts. The first provides a historical account of the law of positive prescription as applied to servitudes from the 17th century to the 20th century, culminating in its statutory expression in section 3(1) and (2) of the 1973 Act. The second considers what the 1973 Act means when it says that a servitude must be “possessed” for the prescriptive period.
    [Show full text]
  • Drugs Investigation
    NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED Drugs Investigation Standard Operating Procedure Notice: This document has been made available through the Police Service of Scotland Freedom of Information Publication Scheme. It should not be utilised as guidance or instruction by any police officer or employee as it may have been redacted due to legal exemptions Owning Department: Specialist Crime Division Version Number: 3.00 (Publication Scheme) Date Published: 25/01/2018 NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED Version 3.00 (Publication Scheme) NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED Compliance Record Equality and Human Rights Impact Assessment (EqHRIA) 19/01/2018 Date Completed / Reviewed: Information Management Compliant: Yes Health and Safety Compliant: Yes Publication Scheme Compliant: Yes Version Control Table Version History of Amendments Approval Date 1.00 Initial Approved Version 26/03/2013 1.02 Introduction of Section 7 relating to the drug Khat 20/06/2014 Amendment made to Appendix ‘E’ due to an error in 2.00 16/09/2015 process Full cyclical review ensuring compliance with Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2016; updated formatting standards applied and removal of geographical 3.00 appendices. Previous sections entitled ‘Safe 19/01/2018 Management of Controlled Drugs & Inspection of Pharmacists’; ‘Khat’; and ‘Presumptive Testing’ removed from the SOP and new section 13 added. NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED Version 3.00 (Publication Scheme) 2 NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED Contents 1. Purpose 2. Section 23 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 3. Section 24 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 4. Obstruction 5. Intimate and Internal Searches 6. Cannabis Cultivations 7. Suspected Drugs Labs 8. Drug Search Warrants 9. Prison – Recovery of Drugs 10.
    [Show full text]
  • Rethinking Theft Crimes in Virginia
    University of Richmond UR Scholarship Repository Law Faculty Publications School of Law 2003 Rethinking Theftr C imes in Virginia John G. Douglass University of Richmond, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.richmond.edu/law-faculty-publications Part of the State and Local Government Law Commons Recommended Citation John G. Douglass, Rethinking Theft rC imes in Virginia, 38 U. Rich. L. Rev. 13 (2003). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law at UR Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Law Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of UR Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ESSAY RETHINKING THEFT CRIMES IN VIRGINIA John G. Douglass* "History has its own logic. m I. INTRODUCTION When it comes to the law of theft, our English ancestors did us no favors. They left us the separate crimes of larceny, embezzle­ ment, and false pretenses. They drew a thin line between larceny and embezzlement, a line that can shift depending upon the mo­ ment in time a thief decides to steal.2 They distinguished larceny from false pretense based on elusive concepts of "title."3 As if these formal distinctions weren't challenge enough, the common law courts concocted legal fictions like "constructive possession" to turn apparent embezzlements into larcenies and vice versa.4 The result is a nightmare for prosecutors. An indictment may * Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law. B.A., 1977, Dartmouth College; J.D., 1980, Harvard Law School. 1. MODEL PENAL CODE§ 223.1 cmt.
    [Show full text]
  • Efficient Trespass: the Case for 'Bad Faith' Adverse Possession
    University of Chicago Law School Chicago Unbound Journal Articles Faculty Scholarship 2006 Efficientr T espass: The Case for 'Bad Faith' Adverse Possession Lee Anne Fennell Follow this and additional works at: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/journal_articles Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Lee Anne Fennell, "Efficientr T espass: The Case for 'Bad Faith' Adverse Possession," 100 Northwestern University Law Review 1037 (2006). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Chicago Unbound. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of Chicago Unbound. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Copyright 2006 by LeeAnne Fennell Printedin U.S.A. Northwestern University Law Review Vol. 100,No. 3 Articles EFFICIENT TRESPASS: THE CASE FOR "BAD FAITH" ADVERSE POSSESSION Lee Anne Fennell* INTRO DU CTIO N ........................................................................................................... 1037 I. M ENTAL STATES AND M ORALITY .......................................................................1046 A. Mental States in Adverse Possession Law .................................................1046 B. Expanding the Taxonomy ..........................................................................1049 C. What's So BadAbout "BadFaith"? ......................................................... 1053 II. ADVERSE POSSESSION AS A DOCTRINE OF EFFICIENT TRESPASS ..........................1059 A. Adverse Possession's M
    [Show full text]
  • Report on Diligence
    SCOTTISH LAW COMMISSION (Scot Law Com No 183) abcdefgh Report on Diligence Laid before the Scottish Parliament by the Scottish Ministers under section 3(2) of the Law Commissions Act 1965 May 2001 SE/2001/107 EDINBURGH: The Stationery Office £20.70 0 10 888031 1 ii The Scottish Law Commission was set up by section 2 of the Law Commissions Act 19651 for the purpose of promoting the reform of the law of Scotland. The Commissioners are: The Honourable Lord Gill, Chairman Patrick S Hodge, QC Professor Gerard Maher Professor Kenneth G C Reid Professor Joseph M Thomson The Secretary of the Commission is Miss Jane L McLeod. Its offices are at 140 Causewayside, Edinburgh EH9 1PR The text of this Report is available on the Internet at: http:/ /www.scotlawcom.gov.uk 1 Amended by the Scotland Act 1998 (Consequential Modifications) (No 2) Order 1999 (S.I. 1999/1820). iii iv SCOTTISH LAW COMMISSION Item No 7 of our Sixth Programme of Law Reform Diligence To: Jim Wallace Esq QC MSP, Deputy First Minister and Minister for Justice. We have the honour to submit to the Scottish Ministers our Report on Diligence. (Signed) BRIAN GILL, Chairman PATRICK S HODGE GERARD MAHER KENNETH G C REID JOSEPH M THOMSON JANE L MCLEOD, Secretary 23 April 2001 v vi Contents Paragraph Page PART 1 - INTRODUCTION 1 Outline of our proposals 1.3 1 Summary warrants 1.10 4 Legislative competence 1.11 5 European Convention on Human Rights 1.12 5 Acknowledgements 1.16 6 PART 2 - ABOLITION OF ADJUDICATION FOR 7 DEBT Outline of existing procedure 2.2 7 Defects of the diligence 2.3 7
    [Show full text]
  • SCOTLAND 1. Real Property
    UK: SCOTLAND Kenneth G C Reid Professor of Property Law, University of Edinburgh and a Scottish Law Commissioner1 1. Real Property Law – Introduction 1.1 General Features and Short History The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland comprises one state, four countries and three jurisdictions. The jurisdictions are (i) England and Wales (ii) Scotland and (iii) Northern Ireland. Each jurisdiction has its own courts, its own lawyers, and its own law. The state has a common parliament (the House of Commons and House of Lords), a common executive, and a common supreme court (the House of Lords), all based in London. But in recent years there has been administrative and legislative devolution both to Scotland and to Northern Ireland. A separate parliament for Scotland was established in 1999, with power to legislate on most areas of private law.2 The union between Scotland and England took place in 1707.3 Before then the countries were separate states. In the medieval period the laws of Scotland and England had many points in common. In particu- lar the feudal system of land tenure, which reached England with the Norman Conquest in 1066, was introduced to Scotland in the course of the twelfth century. From the sixteenth century onwards, how- ever, there was a substantial reception of Roman law in Scotland (but not, on the whole, in England). In Scotland, as in many other European countries, the jurists of the ius commune were studied, and their writings applied in the courts. National legal education did not begin properly in Scotland until the early eighteenth century, and before that time law students from Scotland often studied in the universities of Europe, at first mainly in France and, after the Reformation, in the Netherlands.
    [Show full text]
  • A Recent Controversy About Possession in Scots Law Revives One of the Most Classical Debates in the Civil Law Tradition
    • Concepts and remedies in the law of possession• Raffaele Caterina The Scottish debate A recent controversy about possession in Scots law revives one of the most classical debates in the civil law tradition. On one side of the controversy is Professor David Carey Miller. He maintains that possession proper “occurs where the thing is held in circumstances which support an animus or design in the detainer of holding it as his own property”1. Only possession proper is protected against unlawful deprivation by the remedy of spulzie: “relief by way of spuilzie will not be available to one who holds on the basis of a contract – such as loan or hire”2. Professor Kenneth Reid criticizes Carey Miller’s approach. While “in Roman law the necessary mental act was in general possession as owner (animo domini)”, “in Scots law the rule is very much less restrictive”; “all that is required of a possessor is detention ‘for our own use’. The test is animus sibi habendi and not animus domini”3. Consequently, Kenneth Reid criticizes “Carey Miller’s narrow view of the meaning of possession”, which “leads him to a narrow view of the remedy of spuilzie as excluding those holding property on the basis of a contractual right”4. However, “a thing held exclusively for another is not possessed: the detentor in such a case has custody and not possession”5. If we look at the institutional writers, both the views seem to have some basis. According to Erskine, “possession (…) is defined the detention of a thing with a design or animus in the detainer of holding it as his own”6.
    [Show full text]
  • Diligence Review 2016
    Diligence Review Consultation 2016 Diligence Review 2016 DILIGENCE REVIEW - CONSULTATION Introduction 1. Accountant in Bankruptcy (“AiB”) is currently carrying out a review of the Bankruptcy and Diligence etc. (Scotland) Act 2007 (“the 2007 Act”). This review will assess, wherever possible, the impact of the diligence measures introduced by the 2007 Act, including those provisions which are not yet in force. 2. As part of the Diligence Review 2016 we are carrying out a consultation. This provides you with an opportunity to give your views on the diligence provisions which are currently available in Scotland. We are inviting you to provide feedback on specific questions. Your responses will then be analysed and used, along with a range of other available information and evidence, to determine if any further changes to diligence are necessary. 3. We will also be asking for your views on the content of the Scottish Diligence Statistics, which are published annually, and about the Debt Advice and Information Package (“DAIP”), which must be issued to a debtor prior to certain types of diligence being carried out. Background - Diligence 4. Diligence is the term for various processes of debt enforcement in Scots law. A person or organisation (the creditor) can use diligence if someone who owes them money (the debtor) has failed to pay a sum which is due. However before the creditor can carry out diligence against the debtor they must firstly obtain a decree (court order) which is enforceable in Scotland, or a document of debt; such as a summary warrant. 5. The court order gives the creditor authority to recover money due to them using any method of legal debt enforcement they choose.
    [Show full text]
  • Bankruptcy and Diligence Etc. (Scotland) Bill As Amended at Stage 2 (SP Bill 50A)
    This document relates to the Bankruptcy and Diligence etc. (Scotland) Bill as amended at Stage 2 (SP Bill 50A) BANKRUPTCY AND DILIGENCE ETC. (SCOTLAND) BILL [AS AMENDED AT STAGE 2] —————————— REVISED EXPLANATORY NOTES CONTENTS 1. As required under Rule 9.7.8A of the Parliament’s Standing Orders, these revised Explanatory Notes are published to accompany the Bankruptcy and Diligence etc. (Scotland) Bill as amended at Stage 2. A supplementary Financial Memorandum is printed separately as SP Bill 50A–FM. A Policy Memorandum is printed separately as SP Bill 50–PM. SP Bill 50A–EN 1 Session 2 (2006) This document relates to the Bankruptcy and Diligence etc. (Scotland) Bill as amended at Stage 2 (SP Bill 50A) EXPLANATORY NOTES INTRODUCTION 2. These Revised Explanatory Notes have been prepared by the Scottish Executive in order to assist the reader of the Bill and to help inform debate on it. They do not form part of the Bill and have not been endorsed by the Parliament. 3. The Notes should be read in conjunction with the Bill. They are not, and are not meant to be, a comprehensive description of the Bill. So where a section or schedule, or a part of a section or schedule, does not seem to require any explanation or comment, none is given. THE BILL 4. There have been three main Executive consultations in respect of the provisions of this Bill: • the first consultation paper on diligence reform was Enforcing Civil Obligations in Scotland (the “ECOS consultation”), published on 22 April 2002, and an analysis of the 68 consultation responses was
    [Show full text]