Duncan-Strelec v Tate

In Duncan-Strelec v Tate, the plaintiff sought to enforce a money judgment against the defendant by way of a writ of sequestration. The writ sought to freeze the defendant's assets, allowing the plaintiff to pursue them to satisfy the judgment debt. The defendant challenged the validity of the writ on the basis that it had not been signed by the requisite number of sequestrators, as required by the relevant legislation. The defendant argued that the writ had only been signed by one sequestrator, while the law required two.

The primary issue before the court was whether the writ of sequestration was validly issued, given that it had only been signed by one sequestrator. The court needed to determine whether the statutory requirement of two signatures was mandatory and, if so, whether the failure to comply with this requirement rendered the writ invalid. The court also needed to consider whether there were any circumstances in which a writ signed by only one sequestrator could be considered valid.

The court held that the statutory requirement for two signatures was mandatory and that the writ of sequestration was invalid for being signed by only one sequestrator. The court emphasised the importance of strict compliance with statutory provisions in matters of procedure. However, the court also noted that the invalidity of the writ did not necessarily mean that the plaintiff's rights were lost forever. The court suggested that the plaintiff could seek to remedy the defect by obtaining a new writ that complied with the statutory requirements. The court did not make any orders in relation to the defendant's challenge but indicated that the plaintiff could take steps to correct the procedural error and seek enforcement of the judgment debt through a valid writ of sequestration.