Norwich Union Life Insurance Society v Tanap Invertments UK Ltd & Anor [2000] ScotCS 139 (26 May 2000)

Norwich Union Life Insurance Society v Tanap Invertments UK Ltd & Anor [2000] ScotCS 139 (26 May 2000)

The pleadings are not so defective as to justify dismissal; proof before answer is appropriate to determine if rectification is justified. Potential detriment to defenders provides sufficient interest and title to participate, even if not within section 9. Both reclaiming motion and cross-appeal are refused.

Citation
[2000] ScotCS 139
Parties
Pursuers and Respondents: The Norwich Union Life Insurance Society; First Defenders: Tanap Investments VK Ltd (In Liquidation); Second Defenders and Reclaimers: Svenska Handelsbanken
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
26 May 2000
Procedural Posture
Commercial Action, Reclaiming Motion / Reclaiming Motion and Cross Appeal, Interlocutor for Proof Before Answer
Outcome
Reclaiming motion refused; cross-appeal refused; proof before answer allowed with all pleas standing.
Legal Topics
Rectification of Documents, Ranking of Securities, Title and Interest to Resist Rectification
Property Law Contract Law Commercial Law Rectification of Documents Ranking of Securities Title and Interest to Resist Rectification

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 2 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Norwich Union Life Insurance Society

Pursuers and Respondents

Tanap Investments VK Ltd (In Liquidation)

First Defenders

Svenska Handelsbanken

Second Defenders and Reclaimers

Procedural Posture

Commercial Action, Reclaiming Motion / Reclaiming Motion and Cross Appeal, Interlocutor for Proof Before Answer

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether pursuers' pleadings justify rectification under section 8 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1985
  2. 2 Whether second defenders have title and interest to resist rectification if not within section 9 of the Act

Ratio Decidendi

The pleadings are not so defective as to justify dismissal; proof before answer is appropriate to determine if rectification is justified. Potential detriment to defenders provides sufficient interest and title to participate, even if not within section 9. Both reclaiming motion and cross-appeal are refused.

Court Disposition

Reclaiming motion refused; cross-appeal refused; proof before answer allowed with all pleas standing.

Orders

  • Remit to Lord Ordinary to put the case out By Order for further procedure.