§ MR. YEAMANasked the Lord Advocate, Whether he is aware that complaints have been made of injustice and oppression sustained under the judicial supervision of the liquidation of the City of Glasgow Bank, in respect of unnecessary litigation and inefficiency of supervision; whether he could state to the House the grounds on which the Court of Session did not frame rules for giving effect to the enactments of the Companies Act of 1862 in this respect in terms of the 171st section; and, whether a number of appeals now before the House of Lords by the liquidators against individual shareholders, and involving great hardships, did receive the judicial sanction of the Court of Session 132 under rules framed by the powers of the said Act of 1862?
§ THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. WATSON)Under the 171st section of the Act, the Court of Session was empowered to make such rules as maybe necessary, and until these are made cases coming before them are to be governed by the ordinary procedure. It is also provided that a liquidator is to have the same powers as a trustee in bankruptcy. I have not heard any complaint to the effect that—
Injustice and oppression have been sustained under the judicial supervision of the liquidation of the City of Glasgow Bank, in respect of unnecessary litigation and inefficiency of supervision.No representation whatever has been made either to the Court of Session or to any other quarter; and, so far as I have been able to ascertain, the judicial supervision of the liquidation has been of a very efficient kind. I must add that I regret that such a strong imputation should have been made on the administration of justice without some more definite notice of the grounds on which it is made.