Grantly Developments & Ors v Clydesdale Bank Plc [2000] ScotCS 25 (28 January 2000)

Grantly Developments & Ors v Clydesdale Bank Plc [2000] ScotCS 25 (28 January 2000)

The pursuers failed to establish any prima facie case for preventing the Bank from exercising its rights under the Standard Security. The contractual arrangements expressly permitted the appointment of EWC and EWR, and no implied term prevented the Bank from prejudicing the debtor's ability to repay. No averments of negligence or breach of duty were made. The balance of convenience does not outweigh the lack of merits.

Citation
[2000] ScotCS 25
Parties
Pursuers: Grantly Developments and Others; Defenders: Clydesdale Bank Plc
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
28 January 2000
Procedural Posture
Commercial Action / Motion for Interim Suspension and Interim Interdict
Outcome
Motion for interim suspension and interim interdict refused
Legal Topics
Standard Security Enforcement, Breach of Contract, Implied Terms, Duty of Care, Balance of Convenience
Banking Law Property Law Contract Law Standard Security Enforcement Breach of Contract Implied Terms Duty of Care Balance of Convenience

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Grantly Developments and Others

Pursuers

Clydesdale Bank Plc

Defenders

Procedural Posture

Commercial Action / Motion for Interim Suspension and Interim Interdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Bank breached contract by appointing non-independent advisers
  2. 2 Whether an implied term prevented the Bank from prejudicing the debtor's ability to repay
  3. 3 Whether the Bank is liable for acts of its appointed agents

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuers failed to establish any prima facie case for preventing the Bank from exercising its rights under the Standard Security. The contractual arrangements expressly permitted the appointment of EWC and EWR, and no implied term prevented the Bank from prejudicing the debtor's ability to repay. No averments of negligence or breach of duty were made. The balance of convenience does not outweigh the lack of merits.

Court Disposition

Motion for interim suspension and interim interdict refused

Orders

  • Refusal of interim suspension of calling-up notices
  • Refusal of interim interdict against enforcement of Standard Securities