The Royal Bank Of Scotland Plc v Matheson [2011] ScotCS CSOH_154 (15 September 2011)

The Royal Bank Of Scotland Plc v Matheson [2011] ScotCS CSOH_154 (15 September 2011)

The court held that the test for reduction of a decree in absence is whether there is a genuinely arguable defence and a candid account of the mistake leading to decree. The Bank satisfied the requirement of an arguable defence. The mistakes by the Bank and its solicitors, while culpable, were procedural and not wilful. There were no mitigating factors, but the absence of prejudice to Mr Matheson and the overall circumstances justified exercise of discretion to reduce the decree in absence.

Citation
[2011] ScotCS CSOH_154
Parties
Pursuer: The Royal Bank of Scotland plc; Defender: Nigel Percival McKinnon Matheson
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
15 September 2011
Procedural Posture
Commercial Action for Reduction of Decree in Absence / Judgment After Proof Before Answer on Mistake
Outcome
Decree of absolvitor granted; decree in absence reduced.
Legal Topics
Reduction of Decree in Absence, Recall of Decree, Mistake by Legal Agents, Court Discretion, Procedural Default
Civil Procedure Reduction of Decree in Absence Recall of Decree Mistake by Legal Agents Court Discretion Procedural Default

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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Royal Bank of Scotland plc

Pursuer

Nigel Percival McKinnon Matheson

Defender

Procedural Posture

Commercial Action for Reduction of Decree in Absence / Judgment After Proof Before Answer on Mistake

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the test for reduction of a decree in absence?
  2. 2 Whether the Bank's failures justified reduction of the decree in absence?
  3. 3 Whether the Bank had a stateable defence in the underlying action?

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the test for reduction of a decree in absence is whether there is a genuinely arguable defence and a candid account of the mistake leading to decree. The Bank satisfied the requirement of an arguable defence. The mistakes by the Bank and its solicitors, while culpable, were procedural and not wilful. There were no mitigating factors, but the absence of prejudice to Mr Matheson and the overall circumstances justified exercise of discretion to reduce the decree in absence.

Court Disposition

Decree of absolvitor granted; decree in absence reduced.

Orders

  • Decree in absence in action A140/10 reduced.
  • Decree of absolvitor granted in favour of the Bank.