Searching:
  • Acts
  • SIs
  • Civil Procedure Rules
  • Bills before Parliament
Searching:
  • Official Journal C
  • OJC Documents (in CELEX)
  • EU Cases
  • EU Legislation
  • EU Treaties
  • EU Proposals
  • EU Nat. Implementation
  • EU Parl. Questions
  • EFTA Documents
  • EU External Agreements
  • OJ Daily
  • Human Rights Conventions
Searching:
  • HERMES
  • Times
  • EU News and Commentaries
  • CUP Journals
  • Bills before Parliament
  • Other Articles
  • PLC
  • OUP Journals
  • Blackwell Journals
  • RMIT Journals
  • Court Forms
close
Royal Bank of Scotland v Carlyle
To see all the information available for this document you will need to Sign In.

1 User Commentary

Melanie Davidson (In-house lawyer) 28 September 2015

Case Digest: Carlyle v Royal Bank of Scotland plc (Scotland) [2015] UKSC 13

0 reviews Your rating:

Whether, on an objective assessment of what the parties said to one another, the Royal Bank of Scotland intended to enter into a legally binding promise to lend Mr Carlyle money for the purchase and development of the plot

Judgment was handed down in the case of Carlyle v Royal Bank of Scotland plc (Scotland) [2015] UKSC 13 on 11 March 2015. Lord Hodge gave a unanimous judgment, with which Lord Neuberger, Lord Kerr, Lord Clarke and Lord Reed agreed.

In the judgment, Lord Hodge recognised the limited power of an appellate court to reverse the findings of fact of a first instance judge. This is unless they were satisfied that they were plainly wrong; see the statements of Lord Thankerton at page 55 and Lord Macmillan at page 59 in Thomas v Thomas 1947 SC (HL) 45. The Second Division was not found to have an adequate basis for overturning the Lord Ordinary's findings of fact.

On an objective analysis of the issue before him, Lord Hodge had a reasonable evidential basis to conclude that the bank made a legally binding promise to provide development funding in a telephone call of 14 June 2007, between Mr Carlyle and Ms Hutchinson, representative of commercial banking. The bank had demonstrated intention to create a legally binding promise, in spite of the relatively ill-defined nature of the obligation to provide fungding for the development. Furthermore, the absence of the doctrine of consideration in Scots law meant that such a unilateral undertaking, being intended to have legal effect, was binding without consideration passing from the recipient of the promise. A legally binding obligation had been undertaken.

Appeal allowed. Interlocutor of the Second Division set aside. Case remitted to a commercial judge in the Court of Session.

database/2017-08-22T19:37:50.1969650Z/10854301

Getting the most out of


JustCite is a one-of-its-kind legal research tool that shows you how materials cite and relate to each other. It has an enormous index of information about legal documents and where to find them, but does not contain the documents themselves.

Justis is our full-text online legal library, with an ever-growing range of primary and specialist law reports, judgments and legislation from the UK, Ireland, EU, Australia and Canada.

Register for a Free Trial
Get started with Justis and JustCite now