Scottish Court of Session Decisions

OUTER HOUSE, COURT OF SESSION

[2015] CSOH 66

 

A559/13

OPINION OF LORD KINCLAVEN

in the cause

KENNETH RAMSDEN

Pursuer;

against

SANTON HIGHLANDS LIMITED

Defender:

Pursuer:  Campbell QC;  Thorntons Law LLP

Defender:  Thomson;  Burness Paull LLP

2 June 2015

Introduction

[1]        This is an ordinary action (A559/13) in which the pursuer (“Mr Ramsden”) seeks inter alia:

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

(2)        production and reduction of a disposition by the defender in favour of the pursuer;

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

(4)        payment of £275,000 with interest. 

[2]        The defender (“Santon”) is a property development company.

[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. 14 and 15 of process.  The amended record is no 16 of process.  The debate resumed on 27 February 2015.

[4]        Mr Thomson appeared for the 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 Mr Ramsden.  It has Court Reference A559/13 and it relates to “Plot 3” Courtyard Cottage.  The second action is also at the instance of Mr Ramsden (Court Reference A558/13) and it relates to “Plot 4”.  The third action is at the instance of Ian Thomas (Court Reference A556/13) and it relates to “Plot 11” and “Plot 5”. 

[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.