Page:Margaret Hamilton of Rockhall v Lord Lyon King of Arms.pdf/53

 Lord Lyon were obliged to give reasonable notice of a proposed change in what is recorded in paragraphs 4 or 5 of the Agreement, the Lord Lyon did so in this case as disclosed in the exchanges with the pursuer's agents. In fact, the Lord Lyon acceded to the request as he postponed the implementation of the Disputed Wording for the full period the pursuer's agents sought. If paragraph 4 were terminable upon a change of circumstance, in my view the defender had advanced relevant factors to support that conclusion. However, the pursuer in her pleadings contends for a longer period (of one year). Had the question of what was a reasonable notice been a live issue, then, in the absence of admissions of the parties' averments, proof would have been required to resolve the issue of whether reasonable notice had been given of the departure from paragraph 4 of the Agreement.

Title and interest, want of jurisdiction

[95] There was no dispute as to the rules to be applied. For a person to have title to sue, she must be a party (using the word in its wides sense) to some legal relation which gives her some right which the defender infringes or denies. In relation to interest to sue, this connotes some benefit from asserting the right with which an action is concerned, or from preventing its infringement. There must be a real issue, the existence of a sufficient interest being essentially a matter depending on the whole circumstances.

[96] In light of the foregoing analysis of the Agreement, in my view neither the pursuer nor the firm has title and interest to challenge the Disputed Wording. Insofar as the Agreement affected the pursuer's interests in her personal capacity, namely paragraphs 1 and 2 (para 3 was concerned solely with Dr Lindberg), those have been implemented and there is no outstanding matter contained within them that is capable of founding any legal