Peter Stewart Against Uk Acorn Finance Limited
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judge | Lord Tyre |
| Neutral Citation | [2018] CSOH 31 |
| Docket Number | A643/15 |
| Date | 04 April 2018 |
| Court | Court of Session |
| Published date | 04 April 2018 |
OUTER HOUSE, COURT OF SESSION
[2018] CSOH 31
A643/15
OPINION OF LORD TYRE
In the cause
PETER STEWART
Pursuer
against
UK ACORN FINANCE LIMITED
Defender
Pursuer: Smith QC, Macleod; Lefevre Litigation
Defender: Bowie QC, T Young; TC Young LLP
4 April 2018
Introduction
[1] The pursuer is a crofter who owns subjects at Stone Croft, Thrumster, Wick, which
comprise a cottage and an area of land extending to about ten acres. The defender is a company
which at the material time provided loan finance to inter alia the farming industry. In this
action, the pursuer seeks:
(i) declarator that he is not indebted to the defender unless and until the defender offers
him a loan at a reasonable commercial rate of interest with a term of 15 years;
(ii) declarator that the defender is in breach of contract with him by failing to offer him such
a loan;
2
(iii) reduction of a decree granted by the sheriff at Wick on 3 July 2015, in terms of which he
was found to have failed to pay sums due under a short term loan by the defender secured over
Stone Croft, with the consequence that the defender was found entitled to exercise its remedies
under the Conveyancing and Feudal Reform (Scotland) Act 1970, including entry into
possession, sale, and ejection of the pursuer from the subjects; and
(iv) reduction of a warrant of removing.
[2] The basis upon which reduction of the decree and the warrant of removing is sought is
that the pursuer was, in the circumstances narrated below, deprived of the opportunity to
present two arguments, either of which would have constituted a defence to the defender’s
sheriff court action. The first was that the property at Stone Croft was residential, and the
defender had failed to follow the procedure prescribed by the 1970 Act for recovery of
possession of property which is to any extent residential. The second was that the defender
was at the material time in breach of its contract with the pursuer, in respect that it had failed to
implement a promise to provide the pursuer with medium-term loan finance on expiry of the
loan in question, and was accordingly not entitled to enforce any remedies for non-repayment
of the initial loan.
[3] The matter came before me for proof before answer. In addition to the pursuer himself,
evidence was given on his behalf by his mother, Mrs Heather Stewart, and by Mr Kevin Holt, a
farmer in Aberdeenshire who had also been evicted from his farm after receiving loan finance
from the defender. I allowed Mr Holt’s evidence to be led under reservation as to its
admissibility. Evidence was led on behalf of the defender from Mr Mark Sanders, a director of
the defender, and from Mr Philip Sheridan, an independent mortgage adviser who was
employed by the defender at the material time. I comment below on the witnesses’ credibility
and reliability.
To continue reading
Request your trial