Cromarty Conservation Ltd v. Revack Lodge Estate Ltd [2005] ScotSC 25 (16 May 2005)

Cromarty Conservation Ltd v. Revack Lodge Estate Ltd [2005] ScotSC 25 (16 May 2005)

The sheriff properly applied the two-stage test under section 726(2) of the Companies Act 1985, had credible testimony to support the order for caution, and did not err in fixing the sum at £60,000. The sheriff's discretion was not exercised wrongly, and there was no basis to interfere with the interlocutors appealed against.

Citation
[2005] ScotSC 25
Parties
Pursuers and Appellants: Cromarty Conservation Limited; Defenders and Respondents: Revack Lodge Estate Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
16 May 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil (commercial/contract) / Appeal Against Interlocutor Ordering Caution for Expenses
Outcome
Appeal refused; interlocutors adhered to with minor procedural qualification.
Legal Topics
Caution for Expenses, Section 726(2) Companies Act 1985, Building Contract Dispute, Counterclaim Procedure, Court Discretion in Ordering Caution
Civil Procedure Company Law Contract Law Caution for Expenses Section 726(2) Companies Act 1985 Building Contract Dispute Counterclaim Procedure Court Discretion in Ordering Caution

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cromarty Conservation Limited

Pursuers and Appellants

Revack Lodge Estate Limited

Defenders and Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil (commercial/contract) / Appeal Against Interlocutor Ordering Caution for Expenses

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sheriff erred in ordering the pursuers to find caution for expenses under section 726(2) of the Companies Act 1985
  2. 2 Whether the amount of caution (£60,000) was excessive or improperly calculated
  3. 3 Whether caution should cover expenses relating to the defenders' counterclaim

Ratio Decidendi

The sheriff properly applied the two-stage test under section 726(2) of the Companies Act 1985, had credible testimony to support the order for caution, and did not err in fixing the sum at £60,000. The sheriff's discretion was not exercised wrongly, and there was no basis to interfere with the interlocutors appealed against.

Court Disposition

Appeal refused; interlocutors adhered to with minor procedural qualification.

Orders

  • Appeal refused
  • Interlocutors of 12 November 2004 and 22 December 2004 adhered to, with cause continued to Procedure Roll