Laing v Chung (AP) [1999] ScotCS 76 (12 March 1999)

Laing v Chung (AP) [1999] ScotCS 76 (12 March 1999)

The present action is not barred by res judicata because the issue of obtaining a disposition to restore property, as opposed to mere reduction of the dispositions, was not litigated or decided in the original action. The subject matter and remedy sought are different, and the present claim lies beyond the boundaries of what was previously litigated and decided.

Citation
[1999] ScotCS 76
Parties
Pursuer and Respondent: George Douglas Laing; Defender and Reclaimer: Tai Lee Chung (A.P.)
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
12 March 1999
Procedural Posture
Reclaiming Motion (appeal) / Court of Session, Inner House, Opinion on Reclaiming Motion
Outcome
Reclaiming motion refused; plea of res judicata not sustained.
Legal Topics
Res Judicata, Reduction of Dispositions, Restoration of Property, Land Registration, Bankruptcy (scotland) Act 1985 S.34
Bankruptcy Property Law Civil Procedure Res Judicata Reduction of Dispositions Restoration of Property Land Registration Bankruptcy (scotland) Act 1985 S.34

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

George Douglas Laing

Pursuer and Respondent

Tai Lee Chung (A.P.)

Defender and Reclaimer

Procedural Posture

Reclaiming Motion (appeal) / Court of Session, Inner House, Opinion on Reclaiming Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plea of res judicata applies to bar the pursuer from seeking a disposition of property after having previously obtained decree of reduction of the relevant dispositions under section 34 of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985.

Ratio Decidendi

The present action is not barred by res judicata because the issue of obtaining a disposition to restore property, as opposed to mere reduction of the dispositions, was not litigated or decided in the original action. The subject matter and remedy sought are different, and the present claim lies beyond the boundaries of what was previously litigated and decided.

Court Disposition

Reclaiming motion refused; plea of res judicata not sustained.

Orders

  • The reclaiming motion by the defender is refused.
  • The plea of res judicata is not sustained.