Sagir Sarwar v Clearwater Investments Scotland LTD and another (Sheriff Appeal Court Civil) [2025] SACCIV 25 (22 August 2025)

Sagir Sarwar v Clearwater Investments Scotland LTD and another (Sheriff Appeal Court Civil) [2025] SACCIV 25 (22 August 2025)

The contract required deduction of all expenses, borrowings, and sums paid by the defenders from the sale proceeds before any surplus could be due to the pursuer. The Sheriff erred by not deducting the £79,000 deposit and £12,142.66 loan repayment. After proper deductions, there was no surplus; thus, nothing was due to the pursuer.

Citation
[2025] SACCIV 25
Parties
Pursuer and Respondent: Sagir Sarwar; First Defender: Clearwater Investments Scotland Limited; Second Defender and Appellant: Liaquat Ali
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
22 August 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Sheriff Court Decision After Proof
Outcome
Appeal allowed; decree of absolvitor granted in favour of the second defender; Sheriff's interlocutor recalled.
Legal Topics
Construction of Contracts, Surplus Monies on Property Sale, Count, Reckoning and Payment, Commercial Common Sense
Contract Law Property Law Construction of Contracts Surplus Monies on Property Sale Count, Reckoning and Payment Commercial Common Sense

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sagir Sarwar

Pursuer and Respondent

Clearwater Investments Scotland Limited

First Defender

Liaquat Ali

Second Defender and Appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Sheriff Court Decision After Proof

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether 'surplus monies' were due to the pursuer under the contract after sale of property
  2. 2 Proper construction of the sale and buy-back contract regarding deductions from sale proceeds

Ratio Decidendi

The contract required deduction of all expenses, borrowings, and sums paid by the defenders from the sale proceeds before any surplus could be due to the pursuer. The Sheriff erred by not deducting the £79,000 deposit and £12,142.66 loan repayment. After proper deductions, there was no surplus; thus, nothing was due to the pursuer.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; decree of absolvitor granted in favour of the second defender; Sheriff's interlocutor recalled.

Orders

  • Recall Sheriff's interlocutor of 10 February 2025 and associated Finding in Law (1)
  • Repel pursuer's objections to second defender's account