Kenneil v. Kenneil & Anor [2006] ScotCS CSOH_8 (18 January 2006)
The pursuer and first defender do not have title and interest to challenge the standard securities because the Reporter acts as a court officer, not as their agent, and they are not parties to the missives nor entitled to sue by jus quaesitum tertio. Accordingly, their claims to reduce the standard securities fail and the procedure adopted is competent but the substantive challenge fails for lack of title and interest.
- Citation
- [2006] ScotCS CSOH_8
- Parties
- Pursuer: Edan Hugh Nelson Kenneil; First Defender: Damon Balfour Nelson Kenneil; Second Defender: Alistair Thomas Nelson Kenneil; Reporter: Andrew Rettie (Reporter); Interested Party: Caroline Kenneil; Interested Party: Laura Frances Bonnie Kenneil; Interested Party: McClure Naismith
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judgment Date
- 18 January 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Division and Sale; Ancillary Proceedings / Hearing on Reporter's Report and Minutes Challenging Standard Securities
- Outcome
- Minutes for the pursuer and first defender dismissed; second defender's and interested parties' pleas upheld.
- Legal Topics
- Division and Sale of Heritable Property, Capacity of Court Appointed Reporter, Validity of Standard Securities, Fraudulent Preference, Title and Interest to Sue, Agency and Jus Quaesitum Tertio, Competency of Procedure
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Edan Hugh Nelson Kenneil
Pursuer
Damon Balfour Nelson Kenneil
First Defender
Alistair Thomas Nelson Kenneil
Second Defender
Andrew Rettie (Reporter)
Reporter
Caroline Kenneil
Interested Party
Laura Frances Bonnie Kenneil
Interested Party
McClure Naismith
Interested Party
Procedural Posture
Division and Sale; Ancillary Proceedings / Hearing on Reporter's Report and Minutes Challenging Standard Securities
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether pursuer and first defender have title and interest to challenge standard securities granted by second defender
- 2 Whether standard securities granted by second defender are reducible as fraudulent preferences
- 3 Whether the Reporter acts as agent for the pro indiviso proprietors or as a court officer
Ratio Decidendi
The pursuer and first defender do not have title and interest to challenge the standard securities because the Reporter acts as a court officer, not as their agent, and they are not parties to the missives nor entitled to sue by jus quaesitum tertio. Accordingly, their claims to reduce the standard securities fail and the procedure adopted is competent but the substantive challenge fails for lack of title and interest.
Court Disposition
Minutes for the pursuer and first defender dismissed; second defender's and interested parties' pleas upheld.
Orders
- Reporter authorised to act in accordance with paragraphs 5(viii) and (x) of his Report, subject to parties' further submissions on consequences.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment