Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
[1 ] At the time leading up to the events giving rise to this action, the pursuer was the heritable proprietor of property at Fernieside Avenue , Edinburgh . He had carried out a development of six residential flats at that location. The construction of the flats was completed by about April 1995. He obtained financial help in connection with that development from the defenders.
[2 ] Because of the pursuer's inability to repay the borrowing he had obtained from the defenders, the defenders served a calling-up notice on him on 3 June 1996 . The defenders then took possession of the subjects in September 1996 and a sale of the subjects subsequently took place.
[3 ] The essential issue raised in this action was whether the defenders were in breach of the duty they were under in terms of Section 25 of the Conveyancing and Feudal Reform (Scotland) Act 1970 (the "Act"). As a separate issue, the defenders counterclaim for a sum which they contended was still outstanding in connection with the finance they provided to the pursuer.
[4 ] In the course of the proof before answer evidence was led from the pursuer himself. On behalf of the pursuer, evidence was also led from the following witnesses:
a. Anne Marie Balcombe - At the relevant time Miss Balcombe was employed by DM Hall as a sales negotiator. She dealt with properties on a day to day basis. She worked under the direction of Mr Nisbet.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.