JOAN ALEXANDRA HOBLYN AGAINST (1) BARCLAYS BANK PLC AND (2) THE ACCOUNTANT IN BANKRUPTCY [2014] ScotCS CSIH_52 (11 June 2014)

JOAN ALEXANDRA HOBLYN AGAINST (1) BARCLAYS BANK PLC AND (2) THE ACCOUNTANT IN BANKRUPTCY [2014] ScotCS CSIH_52 (11 June 2014)

The pursuer had no legally relevant case to challenge the repossession and sale of the property, as all statutory procedures were followed, she was not an entitled resident, and the matter had become academic due to the sale of the property. The court exercised its discretion to refuse the reclaiming motion both on the merits and due to procedural non-compliance.

Citation
[2014] ScotCS CSIH_52
Parties
Pursuer and Reclaimer: Joan Alexandra Hoblyn; First Defenders and Respondents: Barclays Bank PLC; Second Defender: The Accountant in Bankruptcy
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
11 June 2014
Procedural Posture
Reclaiming Motion (appeal) in Civil Proceedings / Refusal of Reclaiming Motion at Procedural Hearing
Outcome
Reclaiming motion refused; proceedings dismissed as academic and for procedural non-compliance.
Legal Topics
Repossession, Standard Security, Eviction, Reduction of Decree, Interdict, Suspension of Diligence, Entitled Resident Status, Mortgage Fraud Allegations, Compliance With Court Rules
Property Law Bankruptcy Law Civil Procedure Repossession Standard Security Eviction Reduction of Decree Interdict +4 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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joan Alexandra Hoblyn

Pursuer and Reclaimer

Barclays Bank PLC

First Defenders and Respondents

The Accountant in Bankruptcy

Second Defender

Procedural Posture

Reclaiming Motion (appeal) in Civil Proceedings / Refusal of Reclaiming Motion at Procedural Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer had a legally relevant case to challenge the repossession and sale of her home by Barclays Bank
  2. 2 Whether the sheriff court decree authorising eviction should be reduced
  3. 3 Whether interim interdict and suspension should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer had no legally relevant case to challenge the repossession and sale of the property, as all statutory procedures were followed, she was not an entitled resident, and the matter had become academic due to the sale of the property. The court exercised its discretion to refuse the reclaiming motion both on the merits and due to procedural non-compliance.

Court Disposition

Reclaiming motion refused; proceedings dismissed as academic and for procedural non-compliance.

Orders

  • Refusal of reclaiming motion under Rule of Court 38.15(2)(b)
  • Continuation of the question of expenses to a later date