I've watched it thought mond team was arguing the same point which was in the scottish courts

I watched some of it. The man opposing Mond was good so here’s hoping

If anybody wants to watch the video the supreme court have posted it as catch up at. https://www.supremecourt.uk/watch/uksc-2016-0218/030718-am.html

I have not posted in 6 years but like to lurk and catch up.

Cheers
HJAW

I've watched a few short sections of both sides speaking yesterday.

What I saw really underlined the uncertainty about how parts of the legislation should be interpreted and, therefore, how the opposing sides can each present a strong argument.

So could go either way really is that what you mean x

Hi Wildchild,

I think the essence of any case that reaches the Supreme Court is that it could go either way.

I found the whole thing rather dull. I thought it would be more of a debate format, and tbh most of it was over my head.
From what I could comprehend, both teams made equally compelling cases, so who knows!

Over my head as well.

What I noticed (in the fairly short) segments I watched were different interpretations of legislation and the perceived intentions of that legislation.

Seems straight forward to me . As said at hearing all party's sign up to trust deed . Comes protected . 3 years and you are discharged . Not for one minute do I think mond will win . What a can off worms this would open .

Hope your right

I liked the QC/advocate for Mr Davidson side made a very good point in that the Bank of Scotland sent the cheque to Mr Mond in error (seems a very common error). And if that never happened the trustee by his own sides confirmation is discharged would never have known and this would be a non issue. Why did Mr Mond cash it (whether to hold onto it for the benefit of the creditors or to pass it Mr Davidson) He had and still is as of today not the trustee for Mr Davidson he was discharged. If Mr Davidson loses, who says the new court appointed trustee would have to be Mr Mond, but then again that would not be a voluntary arrangement, which a trust deed is.

I also have a question about PPI which I will be posting shortly hopefully someone can help answer.

HJAW

Not posted for a while but interested to see how this goes.

I wonder what will happen should Mond lose - i.e. Trust Deeds should never have been re-opened in the first place. Bring on the law of unintended consequences.

Hi,

So as stated previously I've only seen short parts of this and much of that I'm not sure whether I followed it fully.

Wasn't part of the stated error that the bank should have set this off against a debt that was included in the discharged trust deed? This would also result in the former debtor not getting the money (and is also legally contentious).

Do we know that Mr Mond cashed the cheque? It may have been mentioned, but I didn't see that.

My understanding is that the former trustee is the person who applies to the Court to be reinstated, rather than the Court becoming involved for a different reason and choosing a trustee.

I'm not sure that many trust deeds were ever re-opened. I can only remember a couple being mentioned in the forum and there seemed to be very few trustees taking this course of action.

BDO were certainly re-opening trust deeds. They re-opened mine then still paid out PPI after the Court of Session ruling in 2016.

I’m fairly sure I can find a thread on here which seemed to indicate that the direction of travel at one time was towards trust deeds being re-opened by former trustees.