Pentland-Clark & Ors v Meldrum & Ors [2011] ScotCS CSOH_125 (04 August 2011)

Pentland-Clark & Ors v Meldrum & Ors [2011] ScotCS CSOH_125 (04 August 2011)

The action as laid does not relevantly aver fraud, either in terms of relevancy or specification; prescription operates to bar the claims; the pleadings are insufficient to admit to probation, and the action against the first defender is dismissed.

Citation
[2011] ScotCS CSOH_125
Parties
Pursuer: Joan Pentland-Clark and Others; Defender: Anne Meldrum Alison Maclehose and Others; Defender: Third & Fourth Defenders; Respondents: Third Party Respondents: Joanna, James and Carolyn
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
04 August 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil / Debate on Relevancy and Prescription; Interlocutor on Exclusion From Probation and Dismissal of Action Against First Defender
Outcome
Action against first defender dismissed; large parts of pursuer's and respondents' pleadings excluded from probation; only limited proof before answer allowed on two pleas.
Legal Topics
Fraudulent Breach of Trust, Prescription, Relevancy of Pleadings, Deathbed Dispositions, Agricultural Tenancy, Executor Duties
Succession Law Trusts and Estates Civil Procedure Fraudulent Breach of Trust Prescription Relevancy of Pleadings Deathbed Dispositions Agricultural Tenancy +1 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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joan Pentland-Clark and Others

Pursuer

Anne Meldrum Alison Maclehose and Others

Defender

Third & Fourth Defenders

Defender

Third Party Respondents: Joanna, James and Carolyn

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil / Debate on Relevancy and Prescription; Interlocutor on Exclusion From Probation and Dismissal of Action Against First Defender

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether allegations of fraud and dishonesty in the creation of a lease and related transactions are relevantly averred
  2. 2 Whether prescription bars the claims
  3. 3 Whether the pleadings meet the required standard for fraud

Ratio Decidendi

The action as laid does not relevantly aver fraud, either in terms of relevancy or specification; prescription operates to bar the claims; the pleadings are insufficient to admit to probation, and the action against the first defender is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Action against first defender dismissed; large parts of pursuer's and respondents' pleadings excluded from probation; only limited proof before answer allowed on two pleas.

Orders

  • Repel pursuer's pleas 3 to 11 and 15 to 17; repel respondents' pleas 1 to 5; sustain first defender's pleas 3 to 5, 10, 13, 14, 15, and 11 to extent specified; sustain other defenders' pleas 6 and 8 to extent specified and plea 4 as to prescription; delete specified conclusions and passages from probation as...