Dickens v Anderson & Anor [2015] ScotCS CSOH_161 (03 December 2015)

Dickens v Anderson & Anor [2015] ScotCS CSOH_161 (03 December 2015)

The court found that neither defender undertook any contractual obligation or made any representation to the pursuer regarding restriction of the inhibition during the relevant telephone conversation. The payment of £10,000 was a payment to account, not consideration for restriction or discharge. The reason for the Woolwich's withdrawal of the mortgage offer was the intended use of funds for a business purpose, contrary to their lending policy, not the existence of the inhibition. The pursuer failed to establish both the existence of a contractual obligation and causation of loss.

Citation
[2015] ScotCS CSOH_161
Parties
Pursuer: Paul Dickens; First Defender: Keith Veitch Anderson; Second Defender: New Alba (Redwood House) Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
03 December 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Action for Damages / Judgment After Proof Before Answer
Outcome
Pursuer's case dismissed; decree of absolvitor granted in favour of defenders.
Legal Topics
Inhibition, Liquidation, Damages, Mortgage Lending, Contractual Obligation, Representation, Causation
Insolvency Contract Property Inhibition Liquidation Damages Mortgage Lending Contractual Obligation +2 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 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Dickens

Pursuer

Keith Veitch Anderson

First Defender

New Alba (Redwood House) Limited

Second Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil Action for Damages / Judgment After Proof Before Answer

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defenders undertook any contractual obligation or made any representation to the pursuer regarding restriction of an inhibition over his property during a telephone conversation on 21 November 2008.
  2. 2 What were the reasons for the Woolwich Building Society's decision in December 2008 – January 2009 to withdraw their offer to lend to the pursuer.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that neither defender undertook any contractual obligation or made any representation to the pursuer regarding restriction of the inhibition during the relevant telephone conversation. The payment of £10,000 was a payment to account, not consideration for restriction or discharge. The reason for the Woolwich's withdrawal of the mortgage offer was the intended use of funds for a business purpose, contrary to their lending policy, not the existence of the inhibition. The pursuer failed to establish both the existence of a contractual obligation and causation of loss.

Court Disposition

Pursuer's case dismissed; decree of absolvitor granted in favour of defenders.

Orders

  • Sustain defenders' second and third pleas in law.
  • Repel pursuer's pleas in law.