Briggs Or Broadway v Clydesdale Bank Plc [2000] ScotCS 138 (26 May 2000)

Briggs Or Broadway v Clydesdale Bank Plc [2000] ScotCS 138 (26 May 2000)

The pleadings and correspondence do not unequivocally establish that the defenders were entitled to assume the pursuer had independent legal advice; therefore, whether the defenders acted in good faith cannot be determined without proof.

Citation
[2000] ScotCS 138
Parties
Pursuer: Mrs Isabella Doris Briggs or Broadway; Defender: Clydesdale Bank plc
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
26 May 2000
Procedural Posture
Civil / Debate on Relevancy, Interlocutory Decision Allowing Proof Before Answer
Outcome
Proof before answer allowed; case to proceed to proof on all issues.
Legal Topics
Standard Security, Undue Influence, Good Faith of Creditor, Independent Legal Advice, Reduction of Security, Cautionary Obligations
Banking Law Contract Law Property Law Standard Security Undue Influence Good Faith of Creditor Independent Legal Advice Reduction of Security +1 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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs Isabella Doris Briggs or Broadway

Pursuer

Clydesdale Bank plc

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Debate on Relevancy, Interlocutory Decision Allowing Proof Before Answer

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defenders (bank) acted in good faith in obtaining a standard security from the pursuer, given the alleged undue influence and lack of independent legal advice.
  2. 2 Whether the defenders were entitled to assume the pursuer had independent legal advice based on correspondence with solicitors.

Ratio Decidendi

The pleadings and correspondence do not unequivocally establish that the defenders were entitled to assume the pursuer had independent legal advice; therefore, whether the defenders acted in good faith cannot be determined without proof.

Court Disposition

Proof before answer allowed; case to proceed to proof on all issues.

Orders

  • Allow parties a proof before answer of their respective averments.
  • Case to be put out By Order to discuss further procedural steps.