Page:Margaret Hamilton of Rockhall v Lord Lyon King of Arms.pdf/44

 review proceedings, the other party could successfully resist this on the basis of the agreement that there be "no expenses due to or by" recorded in paragraph 1.

Paragraphs 1 to 3

[78] How, then, are the individual paragraphs of the Agreement to be construed? It is patent that the first three paragraphs are addressed to resolution of claims advanced in the judicial reviews. The first two paragraphs deal with procedural matters, namely, in paragraph 1, the quashing of the Lord Lyon's decisions in respect of the petitioners' applications to him (ie by the pursuer and by Dr Lindberg), together with the agreement that there were to be no expenses due to or by in the judicial proceedings, and in paragraph 2, the petitioners were to withdraw their current petitions to the Lord Lyon and to submit fresh applications to him in specified terms. Paragraph 3 is solely concerned with a jurisdictional issue in respect of Dr Lindberg, and which records the Lord Lyon's agreement that Dr Lindberg falls within his jurisdiction by reason of his ownership of the dignity of the Barony of Delvine.

[79] It is not disputed that those three paragraphs were implemented. Indeed, the pursuer is designed in these proceedings as "Baroness of Lag" (the Lord Lyon's earlier refusal to recognize her as such formed part of her judicial review). Accordingly, while these paragraphs resolved the disputes in the judicial reviews, and may therefore have constituted new obligations in place of the subject-matter of those proceedings, I accept as well-founded the defender's submission that these paragraphs are spent. In any event, Mr Lindsay did not advance any argument to the contrary.