Royal Bank Of Scotland v Malcolm [1999] ScotCS 98 (16 April 1999)

Royal Bank Of Scotland v Malcolm [1999] ScotCS 98 (16 April 1999)

The defender's admissions in pleadings constituted sufficient proof of the existence and amount of the debt, and the right to object to parole evidence was not lost by failure to object timeously as no prejudice was shown. The defender was not induced to sign the loan agreement by error or misrepresentation. The appeal was refused and the decrees for payment were upheld.

Citation
[1999] ScotCS 98
Parties
Pursuer and Respondent: Royal Bank of Scotland plc; Defender and Appellant: Mrs. Iris Malcolm
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
16 April 1999
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil, Debt Recovery) / Appeal From Sheriff Principal to Court of Session
Outcome
Appeal refused; interlocutors of sheriff and sheriff principal adhered to.
Legal Topics
Proof of Debt by Writ or Oath, Joint and Several Liability, Admissions in Pleadings, Competency of Parole Evidence, Reduction for Error or Misrepresentation
Banking Law Contract Law Evidence Law Proof of Debt by Writ or Oath Joint and Several Liability Admissions in Pleadings Competency of Parole Evidence Reduction for Error or Misrepresentation

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Royal Bank of Scotland plc

Pursuer and Respondent

Mrs. Iris Malcolm

Defender and Appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil, Debt Recovery) / Appeal From Sheriff Principal to Court of Session

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the loan and amount due could be proved without writ or oath of the debtor
  2. 2 Whether the defender's right to object to parole evidence was waived by failure to object timeously
  3. 3 Whether admissions in pleadings constituted sufficient proof of the debt

Ratio Decidendi

The defender's admissions in pleadings constituted sufficient proof of the existence and amount of the debt, and the right to object to parole evidence was not lost by failure to object timeously as no prejudice was shown. The defender was not induced to sign the loan agreement by error or misrepresentation. The appeal was refused and the decrees for payment were upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal refused; interlocutors of sheriff and sheriff principal adhered to.

Orders

  • Decree for payment of £35,113.98 and £514.57 with interest at 8% per annum from 23 November 1995 until payment.