Unity Trust Bank Plc v Frost & Anor [1999] ScotCS 308 (30 December 1999)

Unity Trust Bank Plc v Frost & Anor [1999] ScotCS 308 (30 December 1999)

The pleadings do not clearly establish that any of the counterclaims are prescribed or time-barred, nor do they admit acquiescence barring the claims. The issues require proof. The Bank's motion for dismissal of the counterclaims is refused; a preliminary proof is allowed on whether the Bank lent £210,000, whether it was repaid, and whether the Bank knew it had exceeded lending ratios.

Citation
[1999] ScotCS 308
Parties
Pursuer: Unity Trust Bank Plc; Defender: Martin Frost; Defender: Linda Stewart Anderson or Frost
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
30 December 1999
Procedural Posture
Civil / Procedure Roll Debate; Interlocutor on Preliminary Proof
Outcome
Preliminary proof allowed; dismissal of counterclaims refused; all pleas left standing.
Legal Topics
Loan Agreements, Personal Bonds, Standard Securities, Prescription and Limitation, Counterclaims, Mora, Taciturnity and Acquiescence, Defamation, Restitution, Interdict, Insolvency Proceedings
Banking Law Contract Law Property Law Civil Procedure Loan Agreements Personal Bonds Standard Securities Prescription and Limitation +6 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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Unity Trust Bank Plc

Pursuer

Martin Frost

Defender

Linda Stewart Anderson or Frost

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Procedure Roll Debate; Interlocutor on Preliminary Proof

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Unity Trust Bank lent £210,000 to Mr and Mrs Frost
  2. 2 Whether Mr and Mrs Frost have repaid the loan
  3. 3 Whether the Bank is entitled to payment, declarator, and possession under the personal bond and standard securities

Ratio Decidendi

The pleadings do not clearly establish that any of the counterclaims are prescribed or time-barred, nor do they admit acquiescence barring the claims. The issues require proof. The Bank's motion for dismissal of the counterclaims is refused; a preliminary proof is allowed on whether the Bank lent £210,000, whether it was repaid, and whether the Bank knew it had exceeded lending ratios.

Court Disposition

Preliminary proof allowed; dismissal of counterclaims refused; all pleas left standing.

Orders

  • Preliminary proof before answer on (1) whether the Bank lent £210,000 to the defenders, (2) whether the defenders have repaid all or any part of that sum, (3) whether the Bank knew during 1 January 1989 to 25 May 1989 that it had exceeded lending ratios.
  • All other pleas left standing.