Milne v. E. & J. Birrell [1902] ScotLR 39_656 (14 June 1902)

Milne v. E. & J. Birrell [1902] ScotLR 39_656 (14 June 1902)

The Court held that it is unreasonable for a creditor, after payment of the debt, to refuse to discharge the inhibition unless the debtor pays both the expenses of imposition and discharge. The creditor is liable for the expenses of the petition and any necessary expenses for complete removal of the inhibition.

Citation
[1902] ScotLR 39_656
Parties
Petitioner: William Milne; Respondents: E. & J. Birrell
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
14 June 1902
Procedural Posture
Petition for Recal of Inhibition / Judgment
Outcome
petition granted
Legal Topics
Inhibition, Discharge of Inhibition, Expenses of Litigation

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Milne

Petitioner

E. & J. Birrell

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Petition for Recal of Inhibition / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether a creditor is entitled to demand from a debtor the expenses of both imposing and discharging an inhibition after the debt has been paid
  2. 2 Whether the creditor should be found liable for the expenses of the petition for recal and removal of inhibition

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that it is unreasonable for a creditor, after payment of the debt, to refuse to discharge the inhibition unless the debtor pays both the expenses of imposition and discharge. The creditor is liable for the expenses of the petition and any necessary expenses for complete removal of the inhibition.

Court Disposition

petition granted

Orders

  • Recal the inhibition taken out by E. & J. Birrell on 21st March 1902 against William Milne
  • Grant warrant for marking the inhibition as discharged in the Register of Inhibitions upon production of a certified copy of the interlocutor