OUTER HOUSE, COURT OF SESSION
|
|
P1458/06
|
OPINION (NO. 2) OF LORD BRACADALE
in the cause
THE SCOTTISH MINISTERS For a Recovery Order in terms of Section 266 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 Petitioners
against
CLAIRE RENNISON or SMITH
Respondent: ______________
ญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญ |
Petitioners: MacGregor, Advocate; Civil Recovery Unit
Respondent: Party
28 January 2010
Introduction
[1] In my earlier opinion I concluded that I should make a recovery order in
the terms sought in the prayer of the petition. However, I left open for consideration the question as to
whether I should grant the prayer of the petition subject to a condition that
the Scottish Ministers should repay a certain amount. That question arose as a
result of an observation by senior counsel for the Scottish Ministers in the context of whether some of the mortgage
repayments might have been made from legitimate income. I put the case out by
order and I suggested that Mrs Smith might wish to seek legal advice on
that issue.
[2] In
the event, Mrs Smith did obtain legal advice and counsel appeared, instructed
by agents. However, having given Mrs Smith certain advice on this and other
aspects of the case, counsel and his instructing solicitor sought, and were
granted, leave to withdraw. Thereafter, Mrs Smith continued to represent
herself, as she had done throughout the proof. She was content to proceed with
the By Order hearing.
[3] Mr
MacGregor, on behalf of the petitioners, moved me to grant the prayer of the
petition without making any order for repayment by the Scottish Ministers to
Mrs Smith. He developed his submissions under three heads. First, he
pointed out that the loan obtained by Lee Smith and Mrs Smith to purchase the
property at 5 Briarcroft Drive was obtained on an interest only basis, as
a result of which there was no reduction of the capital sum by the monthly
payments. Nor had there been any one‑off capital repayment. In the
mortgage application Mr and Mrs Smith had indicated that repayment of the
capital sum was to be by means of an endowment policy. Mr MacGregor
explained that the petitioners were not aware of such a policy being in place.
If there was one in existence it was not caught by the prayer in this petition.
[4] Secondly,
Mr MacGregor submitted that the issue was not in any way canvassed in the
pleadings; the answers were skeletal and Mrs Smith had perilled her case on
putting the Scottish Ministers to the proof. Thirdly, he pointed out there had
been no evidence to suggest that there had been any repayment of the mortgage
interest from legitimate funds. There was no basis upon which I could identify
any repayment to be made by the Scottish Ministers.
[5] Faced
with these formidable difficulties Mrs Smith very properly conceded that she
could not advance any basis on which I could impose a condition that the
Scottish Ministers make a repayment.
[6] In
these circumstances I now grant the prayer of the petition and make a recovery
order in respect of the entire property listed in the schedule. Mr Macgregor
moved for the expenses of the proceedings, which motion was not opposed by
Mrs Smith. Accordingly, I shall make an award of expenses in favour of
the petitioners.