ECCLESIASTICAL INSURANCE OFFICE PLC AGAINST LADY IAM HAZEL VIRGINIA WHITEHOUSE-GRANT-CHRIST

[1] In about 15 January 1998 the defender purchased a former church building known as St Brandon’s, Boyndie, Banffshire from the Church of Scotland General Trustees for the sum of £20,000. Subsequently the defender arranged insurance cover for the building with the pursuers. In the proposal form she represented to the pursuers that there was no one residing with her who had been convicted of any offence other than a driving offence. She also represented that no business would be operated from the premises.

[4] The defender disputes the factual basis upon which the pursuers seek to avoid the policy. In particular in her averments she says that her husband was at the time estranged from her and living elsewhere. She also says that no business was operated from the premises.

[5] The defender has raised a counterclaim in terms of rule of court 25. This was lodged on 9 March 2012. It has eight conclusions. They include a conclusion for indemnity under the policy for losses arising from the fire. The conclusions also include ones for payment of what is termed “patrimony” and “solatium”. The solatium element is in respect of alleged defamatory statements attributed, in part, to the pursuers.

[7] Both parties produced written submissions. I am grateful to them for their assistance. I have taken account of all that has been said in both submissions.

[8] The record, including interlocutors runs to 303 pages. Much of it is taken up by the defender’s averments in the principal action and the counterclaim. It is not possible to deal with all of the matters raised by the defender in this opinion. In particular answer 8, which deals with the issue of prescription, runs to 160 pages. Much of it is repetitious and irrelevant to the issue of prescription. I will however deal with those matters that have a bearing on the issues to be determined in this debate.