Ramsden v Santon Highlands Ltd [2015] ScotCS CSOH_65 (02 June 2015)

Ramsden v Santon Highlands Ltd [2015] ScotCS CSOH_65 (02 June 2015)

The action is barred by the plea of 'competent and omitted' as the pursuer's grounds were competent defences in the prior action but were not pled. The pursuer's averments do not disclose exceptional circumstances or res noviter to justify reduction. Claims based on the 2008 Regulations and the Directive are irrelevant as they do not confer a right of action in this context. The pursuer's averments are insufficiently relevant and specific to support the claims.

Citation
[2015] ScotCS CSOH_65
Parties
Pursuer: Kenneth Ramsden; Defender: Santon Highlands Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
02 June 2015
Procedural Posture
Ordinary Action / Debate on Procedure Roll; Judgment on Relevancy and Pleas in Law
Outcome
Action dismissed
Legal Topics
Reduction of Decree, Missives of Sale, Consumer Protection, Competent and Omitted Plea, Contaminated Land, Unfair Commercial Practices
Civil Procedure Contract Law Property Law Reduction of Decree Missives of Sale Consumer Protection Competent and Omitted Plea Contaminated Land +1 more

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 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kenneth Ramsden

Pursuer

Santon Highlands Limited

Defender

Procedural Posture

Ordinary Action / Debate on Procedure Roll; Judgment on Relevancy and Pleas in Law

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer is entitled to reduction of a prior court decree, missives, and settlement agreement
  2. 2 Whether the pursuer is entitled to damages for breach of missives
  3. 3 Whether the plea of 'competent and omitted' applies to bar the present action

Ratio Decidendi

The action is barred by the plea of 'competent and omitted' as the pursuer's grounds were competent defences in the prior action but were not pled. The pursuer's averments do not disclose exceptional circumstances or res noviter to justify reduction. Claims based on the 2008 Regulations and the Directive are irrelevant as they do not confer a right of action in this context. The pursuer's averments are insufficiently relevant and specific to support the claims.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed

Orders

  • Sustain defender’s first and second pleas-in-law
  • Repel pursuer’s pleas-in-law