Thomson v. Royal Bank Scotland Plc [2002] ScotCS 143 (22nd May, 2002)

Thomson v. Royal Bank Scotland Plc [2002] ScotCS 143 (22nd May, 2002)

The pursuer's pleadings, if proved, are sufficient to support a case of undue influence under Scots law, and the law has not changed following Ettridge to require extraordinary circumstances in husband and wife cases. The defenders' averments of good faith, based on reliance on the solicitor's representations, remain relevant and should not be deleted at this stage. Both parties are entitled to a proof before answer.

Citation
[2002] ScotCS 143
Parties
Pursuer: Mrs Laura Thomson (A. P.); First Defender: Royal Bank of Scotland plc; Second Defender: Mr Thomson
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Procedural Posture
Civil Reduction and Interdict / Debate on Relevancy (pleadings) Before Proof
Outcome
Proof before answer allowed; defenders' motion for dismissal refused; pursuer's motion for deletion of defenders' averments refused.
Legal Topics
Undue Influence, Standard Security, Good Faith, Agency, Constructive Notice, Reduction of Security, Interdict
Civil Law Property Law Family Law Undue Influence Standard Security Good Faith Agency Constructive Notice +2 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 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs Laura Thomson (A. P.)

Pursuer

Royal Bank of Scotland plc

First Defender

Mr Thomson

Second Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil Reduction and Interdict / Debate on Relevancy (pleadings) Before Proof

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer's pleadings are relevant to support a case of undue influence for reduction of a standard security over matrimonial property.
  2. 2 Whether the defenders' averments of good faith are relevant as a defence.

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer's pleadings, if proved, are sufficient to support a case of undue influence under Scots law, and the law has not changed following Ettridge to require extraordinary circumstances in husband and wife cases. The defenders' averments of good faith, based on reliance on the solicitor's representations, remain relevant and should not be deleted at this stage. Both parties are entitled to a proof before answer.

Court Disposition

Proof before answer allowed; defenders' motion for dismissal refused; pursuer's motion for deletion of defenders' averments refused.

Orders

  • Allow proof before answer, leaving all averments and pleas standing.
  • Refuse defenders' motion for dismissal of the action.