RECLAIMING MOTION PROMONTORIA (CHESTNUT) LTD AGAINST THE FIRM OF BALLANTYNE PROPERTY SERVICES AND OTHERS [2022] ScotCS CSIH_17 (18 February 2022)

RECLAIMING MOTION PROMONTORIA (CHESTNUT) LTD AGAINST THE FIRM OF BALLANTYNE PROPERTY SERVICES AND OTHERS [2022] ScotCS CSIH_17 (18 February 2022)

The only promise averred was to renew the facility at the end of the 5-year term, which expired in 2017. Clause 10.2 of the facility letter superseded any prior arrangement or promise. The defenders' obligation to repay was not counterpart to the alleged promise. No relevant defence was disclosed; summary decree was appropriate.

Citation
[2022] ScotCS CSIH_17
Parties
Pursuers and Respondents: Promontoria (Chestnut) Limited; Defenders and Reclaimers: The Firm of Ballantyne Property Services and others
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
18 February 2022
Procedural Posture
Commercial Action for Payment / Reclaiming Motion (appeal) From Summary Decree
Outcome
Reclaiming motion refused; summary decree upheld
Legal Topics
Loan Facility Agreements, Collateral Promises, Personal Bar, Mutuality of Obligations, Summary Decree
Contract Law Commercial Law Banking Law Loan Facility Agreements Collateral Promises Personal Bar Mutuality of Obligations Summary 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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Promontoria (Chestnut) Limited

Pursuers and Respondents

The Firm of Ballantyne Property Services and others

Defenders and Reclaimers

Procedural Posture

Commercial Action for Payment / Reclaiming Motion (appeal) From Summary Decree

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a collateral promise by the Bank to renew the loan facility bars enforcement of repayment
  2. 2 Whether the defenders' obligation to repay is counterpart to the Bank's promise to renew
  3. 3 Whether personal bar prevents enforcement of repayment

Ratio Decidendi

The only promise averred was to renew the facility at the end of the 5-year term, which expired in 2017. Clause 10.2 of the facility letter superseded any prior arrangement or promise. The defenders' obligation to repay was not counterpart to the alleged promise. No relevant defence was disclosed; summary decree was appropriate.

Court Disposition

Reclaiming motion refused; summary decree upheld

Orders

  • Court adheres to commercial judge's interlocutor of 26 May 2021
  • Defenders decerned to pay £1,758,544 to pursuers