PROSPER PROPERTIES Ltd+INKERSALL INVESTMENTS LTD v. THE SCOTTISH MINISTERS [2013] ScotCS CSIH_54 (18 June 2013)

PROSPER PROPERTIES Ltd+INKERSALL INVESTMENTS LTD v. THE SCOTTISH MINISTERS [2013] ScotCS CSIH_54 (18 June 2013)

The court held that the joint action was competent due to sufficient connection of interest between the pursuers, the arrestments served on SEERAD were valid as the Scottish Ministers were clearly the intended arrestee and no reasonable observer would be misled, and that a contingent arrestable obligation existed at the time of service as Mr Bell had a right to payment under the Single Farm Payment Scheme. The reclaiming motion was refused and the Lord Ordinary's interlocutor adhered to.

Citation
[2013] ScotCS CSIH_54
Parties
Pursuer and Respondent: Prosper Properties Limited; Pursuer and Respondent: Inkersall Investments Limited; Defender and Reclaimer: The Scottish Ministers
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
18 June 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Reclaiming Motion (appeal) From Commercial Court to Inner House
Outcome
Reclaiming motion refused; interlocutor of Lord Ordinary adhered to.
Legal Topics
Arrestment on the Dependence, Competency of Joint Actions, Designation of Arrestee, Arrestable Obligations, Damages for Breach of Arrestment
Civil Procedure Property Law Agricultural Law Arrestment on the Dependence Competency of Joint Actions Designation of Arrestee Arrestable Obligations Damages for Breach of Arrestment

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Prosper Properties Limited

Pursuer and Respondent

Inkersall Investments Limited

Pursuer and Respondent

The Scottish Ministers

Defender and Reclaimer

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Reclaiming Motion (appeal) From Commercial Court to Inner House

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuers could competently combine their claims in one action
  2. 2 Whether arrestments served on SEERAD were valid and effective against the Scottish Ministers
  3. 3 Whether there was an arrestable obligation at the time of service of arrestment

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the joint action was competent due to sufficient connection of interest between the pursuers, the arrestments served on SEERAD were valid as the Scottish Ministers were clearly the intended arrestee and no reasonable observer would be misled, and that a contingent arrestable obligation existed at the time of service as Mr Bell had a right to payment under the Single Farm Payment Scheme. The reclaiming motion was refused and the Lord Ordinary's interlocutor adhered to.

Court Disposition

Reclaiming motion refused; interlocutor of Lord Ordinary adhered to.

Orders

  • Refusal of reclaiming motion
  • Adherence to interlocutor of 4 September 2012 ordering payment to pursuers