Henderson & Anor v The Royal Bank of Scotland Plc [2011] ScotCS CSIH_71 (18 November 2011)

Henderson & Anor v The Royal Bank of Scotland Plc [2011] ScotCS CSIH_71 (18 November 2011)

The court refused the pursuers' motions to lodge grounds of appeal late and to amend pleadings because no satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay was provided, the proposed amendments would fundamentally recast the case, and the history of repeated procedural defaults weighed against exercising discretion in the pursuers' favour. The reclaiming motion was refused and the Lord Ordinary's dismissal of the action as irrelevant was adhered to.

Citation
[2011] ScotCS CSIH_71
Parties
Pursuer and Reclaimer: Nigel Henderson; Pursuer and Reclaimer: Norma Henderson; Defender and Respondent: The Royal Bank of Scotland plc
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
18 November 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (reclaiming Motion) / Appeal Against Dismissal at First Instance; Motions to Receive Late Grounds of Appeal and Amendment
Outcome
Appeal refused; action dismissed as irrelevant; motions for late lodging and amendment refused
Legal Topics
Negligent Misrepresentation, Breach of Contract, Late Lodging of Grounds of Appeal, Amendment of Pleadings, Court Discretion
Contract Law Tort (delict) Civil Procedure Negligent Misrepresentation Breach of Contract Late Lodging of Grounds of Appeal Amendment of Pleadings Court Discretion

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nigel Henderson

Pursuer and Reclaimer

Norma Henderson

Pursuer and Reclaimer

The Royal Bank of Scotland plc

Defender and Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (reclaiming Motion) / Appeal Against Dismissal at First Instance; Motions to Receive Late Grounds of Appeal and Amendment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuers should be allowed to lodge grounds of appeal late
  2. 2 Whether the pursuers should be allowed to amend their pleadings to increase damages and add new grounds
  3. 3 Whether the reclaiming motion should be refused for procedural default

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused the pursuers' motions to lodge grounds of appeal late and to amend pleadings because no satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay was provided, the proposed amendments would fundamentally recast the case, and the history of repeated procedural defaults weighed against exercising discretion in the pursuers' favour. The reclaiming motion was refused and the Lord Ordinary's dismissal of the action as irrelevant was adhered to.

Court Disposition

Appeal refused; action dismissed as irrelevant; motions for late lodging and amendment refused

Orders

  • Refuse pursuers' motions to lodge grounds of appeal late
  • Refuse pursuers' motion to amend pleadings