McVicar v GD & Ors [2014] ScotCS CSOH_61 (02 April 2014)

McVicar v GD & Ors [2014] ScotCS CSOH_61 (02 April 2014)

The fourth defender's averments, if proved, are sufficient to entitle it to inquiry by way of proof before answer on the counterclaim for recompense based on unjust enrichment arising from the discharge of the pursuer's loan using funds obtained by fraud.

Citation
[2014] ScotCS CSOH_61
Parties
Pursuer: Janette McVicar; First Defender: G E D; Second Defender: The Keeper of the Registers of Scotland; Third Defender: Alexander Currie; Fourth Defender: Nationwide Building Society
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
02 April 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil / Procedure Roll Hearing on Counterclaim and Answers
Outcome
Proof before answer allowed on the counterclaim and answers; decree granted in terms of the pursuer's first, second, and third conclusions in the principal action; all questions of expenses reserved.
Legal Topics
Land Registration, Reduction of Disposition, Rectification of Land Register, Standard Security, Unjust Enrichment, Fraudulent Disposition, Recompense
Property Law Unjust Enrichment Fraud Land Registration Reduction of Disposition Rectification of Land Register Standard Security Fraudulent Disposition +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 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Janette McVicar

Pursuer

G E D

First Defender

The Keeper of the Registers of Scotland

Second Defender

Alexander Currie

Third Defender

Nationwide Building Society

Fourth Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Procedure Roll Hearing on Counterclaim and Answers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer was unjustly enriched by the discharge of her loan using funds obtained by fraud from the fourth defender
  2. 2 Whether the fourth defender has a relevant claim for recompense against the pursuer despite having a contractual remedy against the first defender
  3. 3 Whether indirect enrichment is recoverable in the circumstances of fraud

Ratio Decidendi

The fourth defender's averments, if proved, are sufficient to entitle it to inquiry by way of proof before answer on the counterclaim for recompense based on unjust enrichment arising from the discharge of the pursuer's loan using funds obtained by fraud.

Court Disposition

Proof before answer allowed on the counterclaim and answers; decree granted in terms of the pursuer's first, second, and third conclusions in the principal action; all questions of expenses reserved.

Orders

  • Proof before answer allowed on the counterclaim and answers thereto
  • Decree granted in terms of the pursuer's first, second, and third conclusions