Chartwell Land Investments Ltd v Amec Construction Scotland Ltd [2001] ScotCS 63 (15 March 2001)

Chartwell Land Investments Ltd v Amec Construction Scotland Ltd [2001] ScotCS 63 (15 March 2001)

The defenders failed to make averments or quantify any claim against the third party that would justify the grant of a warrant to arrest and inhibit on the dependence. The court's discretion was exercised to refuse the motion as the procedural requirements and substantive justification were not met.

Citation
[2001] ScotCS 63
Parties
Pursuer: Chartwell Land Investments Limited; Defender: Amec Construction Scotland Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
15 March 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Motion for Warrant to Arrest and Inhibit on the Dependence Against Third Party
Outcome
Motion refused
Legal Topics
Third Party Procedure, Warrants for Diligence, Breach of Contract, Sub Contractor Liability
Civil Procedure Contract Law Construction Law Third Party Procedure Warrants for Diligence Breach of Contract Sub Contractor Liability

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chartwell Land Investments Limited

Pursuer

Amec Construction Scotland Limited

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Motion for Warrant to Arrest and Inhibit on the Dependence Against Third Party

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defender is entitled to a warrant to arrest and inhibit on the dependence against a third party under Rule 26.3 of the Court of Session Rules 1994
  2. 2 Whether the defender's pleadings justify the grant of such warrant

Ratio Decidendi

The defenders failed to make averments or quantify any claim against the third party that would justify the grant of a warrant to arrest and inhibit on the dependence. The court's discretion was exercised to refuse the motion as the procedural requirements and substantive justification were not met.

Court Disposition

Motion refused

Orders

  • Refusal of defenders' motion for warrant to arrest and inhibit on the dependence against the third party