Din v Bridging Loans Ltd [2014] ScotCS CSIH_49 (22 May 2014)

Din v Bridging Loans Ltd [2014] ScotCS CSIH_49 (22 May 2014)

There is no legal presumption that a spouse's sole or main residence is the matrimonial home for the purposes of section 24C. The petitioner failed to establish himself as an entitled resident, and the Lord Ordinary did not err in recalling the interim interdict as the petitioner had not demonstrated a prima facie case or balance of convenience in his favour.

Citation
[2014] ScotCS CSIH_49
Parties
Petitioner and Reclaimer: Tariq Din; Respondents: Bridging Loans Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
22 May 2014
Procedural Posture
Petition for Suspension and Interdict / Reclaiming Motion (appeal) Against Recall of Interim Interdict
Outcome
Reclaiming motion refused
Legal Topics
Heritable Security, Matrimonial Homes, Entitled Resident Status, Interim Interdict, Recall of Decree
Property Law Civil Procedure Heritable Security Matrimonial Homes Entitled Resident Status Interim Interdict Recall of Decree

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tariq Din

Petitioner and Reclaimer

Bridging Loans Limited

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Petition for Suspension and Interdict / Reclaiming Motion (appeal) Against Recall of Interim Interdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the petitioner was an 'entitled resident' under section 24C of the Conveyancing and Feudal Reform (Scotland) Act 1970
  2. 2 Whether there is a legal presumption that a spouse's sole or main residence is the matrimonial home
  3. 3 Whether the Lord Ordinary erred in recalling the interim interdict

Ratio Decidendi

There is no legal presumption that a spouse's sole or main residence is the matrimonial home for the purposes of section 24C. The petitioner failed to establish himself as an entitled resident, and the Lord Ordinary did not err in recalling the interim interdict as the petitioner had not demonstrated a prima facie case or balance of convenience in his favour.

Court Disposition

Reclaiming motion refused

Orders

  • Interim interdict recalled
  • Petition dismissed