BANK OF SCOTLAND v. WILLIAM JOHN STEVENSON [2012] ScotSC 67 (01 June 2012)
Section 19(6) of the Conveyancing and Feudal Reform (Scotland) Act 1970 does not contain exhaustive provisions for service of a calling up notice; service by sheriff officer in accordance with the Ordinary Cause Rules is competent; the calling up notice was validly served on the defender; the proceedings are not incompetent.
- Citation
- [2012] ScotSC 67
- Parties
- Pursuer: Bank of Scotland PLC; Defender: Mr William John Stevenson, trading as Cargen Construction
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judgment Date
- 01 June 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Ordinary Cause / Interlocutory Motion to Dismiss for Incompetency Based on Alleged Invalid Service of Calling Up Notice
- Outcome
- Defender's motion to dismiss refused; proceedings to continue.
- Legal Topics
- Service of Process, Repossession, Standard Security, Statutory Interpretation, Sheriff Court Procedure
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Bank of Scotland PLC
Pursuer
Mr William John Stevenson, trading as Cargen Construction
Defender
Procedural Posture
Ordinary Cause / Interlocutory Motion to Dismiss for Incompetency Based on Alleged Invalid Service of Calling Up Notice
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether section 19(6) of the Conveyancing and Feudal Reform (Scotland) Act 1970 prescribes exhaustive methods for service of a calling up notice
- 2 Whether service by sheriff officer under Ordinary Cause Rules is competent for a calling up notice
- 3 Whether failure to serve in terms of section 19(6) renders proceedings incompetent
Ratio Decidendi
Section 19(6) of the Conveyancing and Feudal Reform (Scotland) Act 1970 does not contain exhaustive provisions for service of a calling up notice; service by sheriff officer in accordance with the Ordinary Cause Rules is competent; the calling up notice was validly served on the defender; the proceedings are not incompetent.
Court Disposition
Defender's motion to dismiss refused; proceedings to continue.
Orders
- Refuses Defender's motion 7/3 to dismiss the action as incompetent.
- Appoints parties to be heard on expenses and fixing a new date for debate.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment