Scottish Court of Session Decisions

OUTER HOUSE, COURT OF SESSION

[2015] CSOH 67

 

A566/13

OPINION OF LORD KINCLAVEN

in the cause

IAN THOMAS

Pursuer;

against

SANTON HIGHLANDS LIMITED

and ANOTHER

Defenders:

Pursuer:  Campbell QC;  Thorntons Law LLP

Defender:  Thomson;  Burness Paull LLP

2 June 2015

Introduction

[1]        This is an ordinary action (A566/13) in which the pursuer (“Mr Thomas”) seeks inter alia:

(1)        production and reduction of missives relating to “Plot 11”, Courtyard Cottages, Fort Augustus;

(2)        production and reduction of a minute of agreement;

(3)        production and reduction of missives relating to “Plot 5”, Courtyard Cottages;

(4)        production and reduction of a disposition;

(5)        an order under section 9 of the Land Registration (Scotland) Act 1979 for rectification of the Land Register of Scotland, and

(6)        payment of £265,000 with interest. 

[2]        The first defender (“Santon”) is a property development company.  The second-named defender lives with the pursuer and is called for any interest she may have.

[3]        This case came before me for debate on the procedure roll on 30 and 31 October 2014 along with two other related cases.  During the debate the pursuer lodged a minute of amendment.  The pleadings were subsequently amended, in terms of the minute and answers nos. 15 and 16 of process.  The amended record is no 17 of process.  The debate resumed on 27 February 2015.

[4]        Mr Thomson appeared for the first defender at the debate.  He invited me to sustain the defender’s second pleas-in-law and to dismiss the action.

[5]        Mr Campbell appeared for the pursuer.  He invited me to allow a proof before answer.

 

My opinion in Kenneth Ramsden v Santon (A558/13) regarding “Plot 4”

[6]        I should mention, at the outset, that the other two related actions involve the same development, the same developer and similar issues in relation to relevancy.  That enables me to state my decision in this case in short compass under reference to my decision (so far as material) in what parties were agreed should be the lead case (“Plot 4”).

[7]        The present action is at the instance of Ian Thomas (Court Reference A566/13) and it relates to “Plot 11” and “Plot 5” Courtyard Cottages.  The other two actions are both at the instance of Kenneth Ramsden.  The first action by Mr Ramsden has Court Reference A558/13 and it relates to “Plot 4”.  The second action by Mr Ramsden has Court Reference A559/13 and it relates to “Plot 3”.

[8]        During the debate both counsel treated the case concerning “Plot 4” (Court Reference A558/13) as the lead action and I shall do likewise.  

[9]        I have already issued my opinion in that lead case (Court Reference A558/13 of even date herewith) and I refer to the terms of that opinion brevitatis causa.

[10]      It follows, applying the conclusions and the reasons set out more fully in that opinion (A558/13) to the pleadings in the present case, that the defender’s submissions prevail in this action (as well as in the other two actions).

[11]      In short, I have reached the conclusion that the pursuer’s averments in the current case are not sufficiently relevant and specific to support the claims made on record.  Taking his averments pro veritate, the pursuer’s case must necessarily fail and his pleas-in-law should be repelled.

 

Decision

[12]      For the reasons mentioned above, I shall sustain the defender’s second plea-in-law, repel the pursuer’s pleas-in-law, and dismiss the action.

[13]      I shall reserve meantime the question of expenses.