Unity Trust Bank Plc v. Frost & Anor [2006] ScotCS CSIH_14 (01 March 2006)

Unity Trust Bank Plc v. Frost & Anor [2006] ScotCS CSIH_14 (01 March 2006)

None of the reclaimers' grounds of appeal had merit; the Lord Ordinary was entitled to make the findings and orders challenged; the reclaimers' procedural and substantive complaints were unfounded or irrelevant; the interlocutor of 4 March 2005 stands.

Citation
[2006] ScotCS CSIH_14
Parties
Pursuer/respondent: Unity Trust Bank plc; Defender/reclaimer: Martin Frost; Defender/reclaimer: Linda Stuart Anderson or Frost
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
01 March 2006
Procedural Posture
Reclaiming Motion (appeal) in Civil Action for Payment and Enforcement of Security / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) Against Interlocutor After Procedure Roll Debate
Outcome
Reclaiming motion refused; interlocutor of 4 March 2005 adhered to.
Legal Topics
Loan Recovery, Standard Security Enforcement, Appeal Procedure, Counterclaim, Lending Ratios, Set Off and Retention
Civil Procedure Banking Law Property Law Loan Recovery Standard Security Enforcement Appeal Procedure Counterclaim Lending Ratios +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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Unity Trust Bank plc

Pursuer/respondent

Martin Frost

Defender/reclaimer

Linda Stuart Anderson or Frost

Defender/reclaimer

Procedural Posture

Reclaiming Motion (appeal) in Civil Action for Payment and Enforcement of Security / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) Against Interlocutor After Procedure Roll Debate

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Lord Ordinary erred in findings of fact and law regarding the loan, repayment, and enforcement of securities
  2. 2 Whether the reclaimers' defences and counterclaims were relevant or established
  3. 3 Whether procedural fairness was afforded to the reclaimers

Ratio Decidendi

None of the reclaimers' grounds of appeal had merit; the Lord Ordinary was entitled to make the findings and orders challenged; the reclaimers' procedural and substantive complaints were unfounded or irrelevant; the interlocutor of 4 March 2005 stands.

Court Disposition

Reclaiming motion refused; interlocutor of 4 March 2005 adhered to.

Orders

  • Payment by the first and second-named reclaimers jointly and severally to the respondents of £306,178.80 with interest.
  • Declaration that the reclaimers are bound by the personal bond dated 25 May 1989.