Dunalastair Investments Ltd for Recall of Inhibition [2002] ScotCS 25 (25th January, 2002)

Dunalastair Investments Ltd for Recall of Inhibition [2002] ScotCS 25 (25th January, 2002)

The respondent has a colourable case in the sheriff court action, as issues of rescission and reasonableness of notice remain to be determined at proof; therefore, the inhibition should not be recalled on the ground of nimiety at this stage.

Citation
[2002] ScotCS 25
Parties
Petitioner: Dunalastair Investments Ltd; Respondent: Ian David McKenzie Young
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Procedural Posture
Petition for Recall of Inhibition / Interlocutory Motion for Recall of Inhibition Pending Sheriff Court Action
Outcome
Motion for recall of inhibition refused at this stage; matter to be put out By Order for further submissions on convention rights.
Legal Topics
Recall of Inhibition, Breach of Contract, Heritable Property Sale, Human Rights Act Compatibility
Civil Procedure Contract Law Property Law Recall of Inhibition Breach of Contract Heritable Property Sale Human Rights Act Compatibility

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dunalastair Investments Ltd

Petitioner

Ian David McKenzie Young

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Petition for Recall of Inhibition / Interlocutory Motion for Recall of Inhibition Pending Sheriff Court Action

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether inhibition should be recalled on grounds of nimiety (excessiveness) and oppression
  2. 2 Whether respondent has a 'colourable case' in the underlying sheriff court action
  3. 3 Whether the inhibition is incompatible with petitioners' convention rights under the Human Rights Act 1998

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent has a colourable case in the sheriff court action, as issues of rescission and reasonableness of notice remain to be determined at proof; therefore, the inhibition should not be recalled on the ground of nimiety at this stage.

Court Disposition

Motion for recall of inhibition refused at this stage; matter to be put out By Order for further submissions on convention rights.

Orders

  • Inhibition not recalled on grounds of nimiety; further hearing to be fixed for submissions on Human Rights Act compatibility.