Bankruptcy review summaries 2025-26

Review 1

Review 1

Scenario

The creditor asked for a review of the trustee’s decision to reject their claim in full. They alleged that the debtor was party to company fraud and this created a constructive trust in their favour and that all assets and funds realised in the sequestration should be treated as belonging to them. In support of their position the creditor relied on legal opinion they had received as well as civil proceedings raised against the debtor and her husband. The trustee provided their reasons for rejecting the claim. They stated that there was no evidence of any wrongdoing by the debtor and the court action against the debtor had been dismissed. In addition they had received their own legal advice which confirmed that a constructive trust did not exist.

Decision

The reviewing officer confirmed the trustee’s original decision, and the creditors claim was rejected.

Review 2

Review 2

Scenario

A creditor asked for a review of the trustee’s decision to reject their claim in full. They provided substantial documentation in support of their claim. The reviewing officer considered the review and associated submissions. The trustee provided representations which included legal opinion that had been sought. 

Decision

The reviewing officer confirmed the trustee’s original decision, and the creditor’s claim was rejected.

Review 3

Review 3

Scenario

The debtor asked for a review of the trustee’s decision to allow the petitioning creditor’s claim in his sequestration. The trustee provided a copy of the creditor’s claim which included decree for payment. The debtor had been present in court before the Sheriff awarded sequestration and therefore had an opportunity to put his argument before the Sheriff.

Decision

The reviewing officer, having considered the debtor’s review application and all the facts of the case, confirmed the trustee’s decision and the claim within the sequestration was agreed in full.

Review 4

Review 4

Scenario

A creditor asked for a review of the trustee’s decision not to rank their claim as preferential. They claimed that employees should be treated as preferential and stated that her claim related tom unpaid wages. The reviewing officer considered the creditors claim. Through their investigations they noted that the creditor had already been paid through the Insolvency service in respect of arrears of wages that would otherwise have been classed as ordinary preferential and any remaining sums due were therefore correctly classed as an ordinary claim.

Decision

The trustee’s adjudication was confirmed and the debt remained classed as ordinary.