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.
The judgment should re recorded under the following categories: Procedure and Contract
The Sheriff Principal having resumed consideration of the appeal recalls the interlocutor of the Sheriff dated 8 December 1999; allows the parties before answer a proof of their respective averments; remits the cause to the Sheriff to assign a diet of proof; finds the respondents liable to the appellant in the expenses of the appeal and of the debate as taxed; allows an account of expenses to be given in and remits the same, when lodged, to the Auditor of Court to tax and to report; sanctions the employment of counsel in connection with the appeal.
"stipulated for inter alia a "First Standard Security" over Hazelburn and a "Third Standard Security" over premises known as Club 2000".
1.2 The Bank did not obtain a first standard security (or as it is called elsewhere in the pleadings a "first ranking standard security"). When LLH went into receivership the floating charges became fixed and both had priority over the standard security which had been granted in favour of the Bank. It was said that the result of that priority is that no sums will be recovered in terms of the standard security. The Bank avers that no security was granted in their favour in respect of the Club 2000 premises.
It was decided at a debate at an earlier stage in this case that that aspect of the case will have to go to proof.
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.