Page:Margaret Hamilton of Rockhall v Lord Lyon King of Arms.pdf/22

 :the defender. In any event, by the grant to a petitioner of arms appropriate to the dignity of such a baron, the Lord Lyon is ipso facto accepting that he has jurisdiction in recognition inter alia of the petitioner's ownership of the barony.


 * 3. If, contrary to the defender's contention, those paragraphs were intended to and did create rights, those would be rights created for the benefit of third parties and not for the benefit of either Dr Lindberg or the pursuer: he referred again to the wording in paragraph 4 to "other persons". The dispute that was settled under paragraphs 1 to 3 of the Agreement did not concern third parties or their rights.


 * 4. The pursuer does not aver that in those prior judicial review proceedings in the Court of Session she asserted or sought to vindicate any rights qua partner in a firm. He submitted that it was clear on the evidence of the petition for judicial review, that she did not do so. No such interest is mentioned in the Agreement. Accordingly, the pursuer had no personal patrimonial interest in the performance by Lyon Blair of the approach set out in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Agreement. On the pursuer's averments, the purported losses to which she refers were not in the reasonable contemplation of the parties to the Agreement, and are too remote to sound in damages: see Balfour Beatty Construction (Scotland) Ltd v Scottish Power plc 1994 SC (HL) 20 per Lord Jauncey at pages 30–32. It is not for a stranger to the arms to challenge the grant: see Stewart Mackenzie v Fraser-Mackenzie 1922 SC (HL) 39 at 44–45.