PETITION OF UK AGRICULTURAL LENDING LTD FOR RECTIFICATION OF DOCUMENTS [2021] ScotCS CSOH_54 (21 May 2021)

PETITION OF UK AGRICULTURAL LENDING LTD FOR RECTIFICATION OF DOCUMENTS [2021] ScotCS CSOH_54 (21 May 2021)

The evidence, including the Facility Letter, contemporaneous correspondence, and affidavits, established that the parties' common intention was for the standard securities to secure the second respondent's indebtedness to the petitioner. The error in drafting was admitted and explained. No evidence supported the respondents' contrary assertions. The statutory test for rectification was met, and section 9 did not bar rectification.

Citation
[2021] ScotCS CSOH_54
Parties
Petitioner: UK Agricultural Lending Limited; First Respondent: Hamilton Orr Limited; Second Respondent: Orrdone Farms Limited (in administration); Third Respondent: Martin Frost; Fourth Respondent: Mrs Frost
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
21 May 2021
Procedural Posture
Petition for Rectification of Documents / Final Judgment
Outcome
Petition granted
Legal Topics
Rectification of Documents, Standard Securities, Common Intention, Personal Guarantees, Law Reform (miscellaneous Provisions) (scotland) Act 1985
Property Law Contract Law Company Law Rectification of Documents Standard Securities Common Intention Personal Guarantees Law Reform (miscellaneous Provisions) (scotland) Act 1985

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

Parties

UK Agricultural Lending Limited

Petitioner

Hamilton Orr Limited

First Respondent

Orrdone Farms Limited (in administration)

Second Respondent

Martin Frost

Third Respondent

Mrs Frost

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Petition for Rectification of Documents / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether standard securities granted by the first respondent should be rectified to secure the indebtedness of the second respondent rather than the first respondent
  2. 2 Whether the third and fourth respondents have title and interest to oppose the petition
  3. 3 Whether section 8 and section 9 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1985 apply

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence, including the Facility Letter, contemporaneous correspondence, and affidavits, established that the parties' common intention was for the standard securities to secure the second respondent's indebtedness to the petitioner. The error in drafting was admitted and explained. No evidence supported the respondents' contrary assertions. The statutory test for rectification was met, and section 9 did not bar rectification.

Court Disposition

Petition granted

Orders

  • Pleas-in-law for respondents repelled
  • Prayer of the petition granted