The developer whose landmark court victory over Royal Bank of Scotland was overturned on appeal by the bank last month has taken the case to the Supreme Court.
In the original judgment in 2010, Lord Glennie ruled that the bank had been wrong to withhold the final £700,000 development cost of a housing site at Gleneagles, after advancing Derek Carlyle £1.4 million to acquire land that was subject to a buyback clause unless houses were built.
Lord Glennie ruled that the bank had effectively created a "collateral warranty obligation", encouraging Mr Carlyle to proceed with the land deal in June 2007.
The judge also reproached RBS for "lack of candour" in its evidence.
Last month, three appeal court judges overturned the judgment.
They said the bank's action "may have been contrary to the spirit of the negotiations prior to the signing of the written agreements, but that spirit, or its moral content, cannot be taken as creating a legally binding voluntary obligation".
The ruling undermines a £3m counter-claim by Mr Carlyle against RBS, who is pursuing the developer for a £2m personal guarantee.
Soon after Mr Carlyle won the original Court of Session case in 2010, the bank was instrumental in his sequestration for a minor debt, prompting Labour MP Jim Hood to accuse the bank in the Commons of sanctioning "a personal vendetta by bank personnel" against his constituent.
Mr Carlyle was subsequently penalised further with a record 12-year bankruptcy restriction order for transferring proceeds of a property sale, which had been remitted to him by the bank.
Mr Carlyle, who has kept the action alive with support from the Scottish Legal Aid Board, confirmed that he was going to continue his fight.
He said: "I have been impressed with the wide-ranging support and legal opinion that I have received, all encouraging me to appeal to the Supreme Court for a final decision."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article