Santander UK Plc v Keeper of the Registers of Scotland [2013] ScotCS CSOH_24 (08 February 2013)

Santander UK Plc v Keeper of the Registers of Scotland [2013] ScotCS CSOH_24 (08 February 2013)

The Keeper's decision to register the discharge was an operational act and thus justiciable. There were sufficient averments to support foreseeability of loss. However, it is not fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care on the Keeper in these circumstances, as the loss was caused by the criminal acts of the pursuers' customer, and the risk of such loss was assumed by the lender. The law is reluctant to extend liability for pure economic loss caused by third-party crime, and no common law duty of care arises on these facts.

Citation
[2013] ScotCS CSOH_24
Parties
Pursuer: Santander UK Plc; Defender: Keeper of the Registers of Scotland
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
08 February 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil (negligence, Duty of Care) / Opinion on Preliminary Pleas (motion to Dismiss)
Outcome
Action dismissed (defender's preliminary plea sustained)
Legal Topics
Negligence, Duty of Care, Land Registration, Economic Loss, Public Authority Liability
Tort Law Public Law Property Law Negligence Duty of Care Land Registration Economic Loss Public Authority Liability

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Santander UK Plc

Pursuer

Keeper of the Registers of Scotland

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil (negligence, Duty of Care) / Opinion on Preliminary Pleas (motion to Dismiss)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Keeper of the Registers of Scotland owed a common law duty of care to the pursuers in the processing of a forged discharge of a standard security
  2. 2 Whether the decision to register the discharge was a non-justiciable policy decision or an operational act subject to judicial scrutiny
  3. 3 Whether the Caparo test for duty of care (foreseeability, proximity, fairness) is met in the circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

The Keeper's decision to register the discharge was an operational act and thus justiciable. There were sufficient averments to support foreseeability of loss. However, it is not fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care on the Keeper in these circumstances, as the loss was caused by the criminal acts of the pursuers' customer, and the risk of such loss was assumed by the lender. The law is reluctant to extend liability for pure economic loss caused by third-party crime, and no common law duty of care arises on these facts.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed (defender's preliminary plea sustained)

Orders

  • Action dismissed
  • No proof before answer allowed