The latest permission to appeal cases are on the Supreme Court website and his isn't listed. So who knows?

This has gone on so long. Fed up waiting for a decision .

Protected Trust Deeds

The legal basis for re-opening a closed protected trust deed has been a hot topic with differing legal opinions, differing Sheriff Court decisions n- some allowing re-opening and others not.

Recently we have had a decision of both the Outer House and Inner House of the Court of Session in the case of Dooneen Limited & another v David Mond which in summary said Trust Deeds cannot be re-opened once the trustee has declared a final distribution (even if the trustee didn't know about this asset). We understand that leave to appeal this decision to the Supreme Court has been sought and therefore we may not have a final decision until possibly mid 2017!

Found this on website

Looks like mid 2017 then Gleith unfortunately before it is cleared up... but could be longer!

The Supreme Court has published the list of cases it will hear when it sits in Scotland this year.

The Mond case is not one of them.

I think I've suggested before that you could go directly to the Supreme Court Gleith, and ask them if they've received a request to appeal from Mond and when it would be heard. Maybe as a freedom of information enquiry. What came out of that?

You could also go to your trustee and ask them for details of when the Mond case will be heard by the Supreme Court. If they don't have a date for that, you could ask them to get that information.

After all, they've asked a Sheriff to sist a case on the basis that the information will be forthcoming. Ask them to come forth with that information.

If they don't have that information, you could ask them why not. Especially if they are using the 'Mond potential appeal to the Supreme Court' case as their reason for pursuing their own court case against you. Even after the Sheriff appeal court said in the Donnelly v RBS case that

"It was also brought to our attention that leave to appeal by the defender in that case to the UK Supreme Court had been refused by the Inner House but it was also understood that an application was to be made directly to the UK Supreme Court for leave to appeal to that court. Counsel for Mrs Donnelly accepted that her appeal could not succeed if Dooneen was wrongly decided."

It says 'understood'. Maybe it's time that your trustee gets a definitive answer on whether or not an application HAS been made directly to the Supreme Court. Not to mention whether or not the Supreme Court HAS (or hasn't) accepted it. After all, your trustee has asked a Sheriff to sist a case on the basis that such an application has been made to the Supreme Court.

If your trustee's argument is 'there's gonna be an appeal' then your trustee needs to back that up with facts, figures and dates rather than 'we heard it somewhere'.

Not to mention this bit from the Donnelly appeal

"Although the Bank contended in a supplementary note of argument that Dooneen had been wrongly decided, IT WAS RECOGNISED THAT IT WAS BINDING ON THIS COURT and the argument was not, therefore, made to us."

My emphasis. But it begs the question why your trustee continues with their court case AFTER the Donnelly appeal judgement had been published. It recognised that Dooneen was binding on the court. Why did your trustee ask another court to take a different approach?

Why not ask your trustee that question? Put them on the spot. Make them justify their choice to carry on with the court case AFTER the Donnelly judgement and in the absence of any definite information about Mond actually applying to the supreme court to make an appeal.

I really think that we've got to the stage where it's as simple as that. Ask your trustee to explain why THEY are ignoring the decision in Dooneen - which the Sheriff appeal court accepted was binding on them.

If their answer is that they *************UNDERSTAND***** that Mond intends to appeal the decision via the supreme court, ask them to put hearing dates on that understanding***.

It will be interesting to hear what answers your trustee comes up with.

But I do think that it is time - possibly well overdue - that you ask your trustee to answer these things.

Thank you for your comments. This has gone on for so long now. I just want a decision. I will email them today.

Wouldn't Mond have a limited amount of time available to him to make a request for an appeal? The latest CoS appeal was July last year. It really is incredible that this whole saga has dragged on as long as it has.

Let's hope that it comes to a conclusion soon. And after it does there is clear guidance to TD firms exactly what they can an cannot do post discharge.

The last court case was on the 9th of Nov where he tried to appeal to court of session for permission to appeal to Supreme Court which he failed according to the court he had 28 days to appeal directly to Supreme Court obviously he does not like the Scottish ruling on the subject Or he does not like losing you would have thought after last cos verdict and the majority of trustees adhering to it he would have gave in

Maybe he thinks he's right? Maybe his legal advice is that he has a very good chance of winning? Why spend big money on continuing this otherwise?

That's all speculation though of course. As far as I can tell from all of the commentary available, it hasn't yet been determined whether the Supreme Court will hear this case.

His legal team will advise that all day long as long as they are getting paid. If I were a betting man, after two CoS verdicts saying that PPI awards post discharge remain with the debtor, I know where my money would be going should Mond's appeal be granted.

It's a farce.

I've just heard that permission to appeal has been granted by Supreme Court in the Doineen v Mond case.

I seen this via Twitter from a Senior Partner at Harper MacLeod Solicitors who I know and follow. I haven't verified the information but I have no reason to doubt the tweet.

It appears that this will continue for a while longer.

Not what many wanted to hear.

I

Doesn't mean he will win

It certainly doesn't Gleith.

One of the interesting things about this is that there's a really high test for cases to be brought before the Supreme Court at all.

I know many people here are primarily interested in the verdict, but I'm very interested to learn more about the issues and arguments that come out of this when it happens.