Halliday v Pattison
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 12 June 1987 |
| Date | 12 June 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 34. |
| Court | Court of Session (Outer House) |
OUTER HOUSE.
Lord Kirkwood.
Practice—Reduction of prior decree—Review—Decree by default passing against pursuer by reason of inadvertence of agents—Pursuers averring a defence to action which had a reasonable prospect of success—Delay in raising action of reduction—Pursuers failing to reclaim—Whether reduction should be granted in exercise of Lord Ordinary's discretion—Rules of Court 1965, r. 264 (d) and (e).1
The defender raised an action for payment in 1985 against the pursuers. Decree by default passed against, inter alios, the pursuers in 1986, which decree was subsequently extracted. Prior to decree passing the pursuers then agents had withdrawn from acting and the pursuers had been appointed to intimate to the depute principal clerk of session whether or not they were to insist in their defences under certification that failure to do so would result in decree passing against them. A charge was served upon the pursuers leading to correspondence between the parties which resulted in no settlement of the defender's claim. Sequestration proceedings followed and the pursuers were requested to appear in court to shew cause why
sequestration should not be awarded. An action of reduction of the 1986 decree was raised in the Court of Session in which interim interdict in respect of the sequestration proceedings was granted. In the Court of Session action for reduction the pursuers contended that decree by default had passed through the inadvertence of their agents who had acted for them after their original agents had withdrawn from acting in failing to contact the depute principal clerk and inform him of their insistence in their defence to the original action. The pursuers argued that, although the charge for payment had been served prior to the raising of the reduction proceedings, the pursuer's cause disclosed such exceptional circumstances as would entitle the pursuers to reduction of the original decree. The defender argued that decree for reduction should not pass and founded in particular on the delay in raising the reduction proceedings, and that the only ground put forward by the pursuers had been their agents' inadvertence when those agents had been given, inter alia, the service copy of the interlocutor requesting intimation to the depute principal clerk and must have realised its significance, which knowledge had to be imputed to the pursuers. The defender also founded upon the absence of any attempt to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Patrick Joseph Sullivan V. Mrs. Shirley Ann Mccann Sullivan (ap)
...he must bear responsibility: Stewart v Lothians Construction (Edinburgh) Ltd 1972 S.L.T. notes 75; Gehlan, supra; Halliday v Pattison 1988 S.L.T. 235; Kirkwood v Glasgow District Council 1988 S.L.T. 430; Shaw v Performing Rights Society (Lord Menzies, unreported, 9 July 2002). (4)In the cas......
-
Hardeep Singh Sangha v Secretary of state for the home department
...All ER 717. R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte BugdaycayELR [1987] 1 AC 514: [1987] Imm AR 250. Halliday v Pattison [1988] SLT 235. Kirkwood v City of Glasgow District Council [1988] SLT 430. Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Shahib Al-Mehdawi [1990] I......
-
The Royal Bank Of Scotland Plc V. Nigel Percival Mckinnon Matheson
...power of reduction. Reference was made to Stewart v Lothians Construction (Edinburgh) Limited 1972 SLT (Notes) 75, Halliday v Pattison 1987 SC 259 and Gehlan v Saeed 1987 SCLR 668 all of which related to decrees by default. Counsel relied upon the passage cited from Sullivan v Sullivan and ......
-
The Royal Bank Of Scotland Plc V. Nigel Percival Mckinnon Matheson
...v Alltransport International Group Ltd 1980 SC 57; Zannetos v Glenford Investments Holdings Ltd 1982 SLT 453; Halliday v Pattison 1987 SC 259; Gahlan v Saheed 1987 SCLR 668; Gaffney v Compass Yachting Ltd 1987 SCLR 449; Kirkwood v Glasgow DC 1988 SC 169; Bain v Hugh L S McConnell Ltd 1991 S......