PROMONTORIA (CHESTNUT) LIMITED AGAINST THE FIRM OF BALLANTYNE PROPERTY SERVICES AND OTHERS [2020] ScotCS CSOH_56 (29 May 2020)

PROMONTORIA (CHESTNUT) LIMITED AGAINST THE FIRM OF BALLANTYNE PROPERTY SERVICES AND OTHERS [2020] ScotCS CSOH_56 (29 May 2020)

The defenders’ averments do not disclose a relevant defence to the pursuer’s claim for repayment. The assignation from the Bank to the pursuer was valid and effective; intimation was properly given. The alleged promise by the Bank, even if proved, was not a counterpart of the repayment obligation and does not prevent enforcement. The defenders’ arguments on personal bar and mutuality are irrelevant or misconceived. There is no triable issue requiring proof. Summary decree is appropriate for the admitted sum with interest.

Citation
[2020] ScotCS CSOH_56
Parties
Pursuer: Promontoria (Chestnut) Limited; First Defender: The Firm of Ballantyne Property Services; Second Defender: Gillian Ballantyne Smith; Third Defender: Thomas Alan Smith
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
29 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Commercial Action (court of Session, Scotland) / Debate on Relevancy of Defences and Hearing of Pursuer’s Motion for Summary Decree
Outcome
Summary decree granted in favour of the pursuer for the sum of £1,758,544 with interest from 1 April 2018 at the contractual rate.
Legal Topics
Assignation of Debt, Promise in Scots Law, Personal Bar (estoppel), Mutuality of Contract, Summary Decree, Facility Agreements, Title to Sue
Contract Law Banking and Finance Law Civil Procedure Assignation of Debt Promise in Scots Law Personal Bar (estoppel) Mutuality of Contract Summary Decree +2 more

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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Promontoria (Chestnut) Limited

Pursuer

The Firm of Ballantyne Property Services

First Defender

Gillian Ballantyne Smith

Second Defender

Thomas Alan Smith

Third Defender

Procedural Posture

Commercial Action (court of Session, Scotland) / Debate on Relevancy of Defences and Hearing of Pursuer’s Motion for Summary Decree

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer has title to sue as assignee of the Bank's rights under the facility agreements
  2. 2 Whether the defenders have a relevant defence based on an alleged promise by the Bank to renew facilities
  3. 3 Whether the defenders can resist repayment on grounds of personal bar or mutuality

Ratio Decidendi

The defenders’ averments do not disclose a relevant defence to the pursuer’s claim for repayment. The assignation from the Bank to the pursuer was valid and effective; intimation was properly given. The alleged promise by the Bank, even if proved, was not a counterpart of the repayment obligation and does not prevent enforcement. The defenders’ arguments on personal bar and mutuality are irrelevant or misconceived. There is no triable issue requiring proof. Summary decree is appropriate for the admitted sum with interest.

Court Disposition

Summary decree granted in favour of the pursuer for the sum of £1,758,544 with interest from 1 April 2018 at the contractual rate.

Orders

  • Decree for payment by the defenders to the pursuer of £1,758,544 with interest from 1 April 2018 at 3% above Bank of England base rate per annum until payment.