OUTER HOUSE, COURT OF SESSION
 CSOH 90
NOTE BY LADY PATON
in the cause
Pursuer and Reclaimer;
LOMBARD NORTH CENTRAL PLC
Defenders and Respondents:
Defenders; Shepherd & Wedderburn
 In this action the pursuer seeks reduction of a sheriff court decree against him for payment of г11,990.90. He also seeks reduction and suspension of a charge following thereon.
 The defenders aver that they entered into a conditional sale agreement with the pursuer relating a Jaguar sports car. The car was delivered to the pursuer. The defenders sought payment in terms of the agreement. They ultimately raised an action for payment in the sheriff court. After sundry procedure, the defenders enrolled a motion for summary decree. Averments relating to that motion are contained in Answer 3. Summary decree was granted by the sheriff in December 2003. A charge was served on the pursuer.
 The pursuer responded by instructing solicitors to raise the present action for reduction in December 2004. In Article 9 of Condescendence, it is averred that the pursuer in fact had a defence to the action for payment. Details of that defence are set out. In Article 6 of Condescendence it is explained that the pursuer had understood that solicitors were dealing with the sheriff court action on his behalf. He had been unaware that decree had passed against him until service of the charge. Those averments are disputed by the defenders (Answers 3, 5, and 6). In particular, the defenders aver that the pursuer did not instruct solicitors until after summary decree was granted (Answer 3).
 At the outset of the present action, the pursuer sought interim orders suspending further diligence. Interim orders were granted on the basis of ex parte statements. Thereafter, although the pursuer's agents effected service of the interim orders, no steps were taken to serve the summons. In May 2005 the defenders enrolled a motion to have the pursuer ordained to serve the summons. They also enrolled a motion for recall of the interim orders. The first motion was granted; the second was continued on the basis of assurances given in court that the sum due in terms of the sheriff court decree would be paid.
 By the
time of the continued motion, the pursuer's solicitors had withdrawn from acting. The summons had not been lodged for
pursuer thereafter failed to lodge a record.
The defenders enrolled a motion for dismissal by default. On
were no adjustments by either pursuer or defenders. The record closed on the summons and defences
Starred motion on Tuesday 22 November 2005
motion came before me on
 Mr Fairley
invited me to recall the interim orders.
He began to address me on that matter, referring to
 Mr Fairley then referred to the history of the litigations in both sheriff court and Court of Session. He submitted that the pursuer had repeatedly failed to comply with orders of the court, and had also required to be prompted or forced into action at many procedural stages. Counsel stated that the pursuer had on several occasions assured the defenders' agents that payment would be forthcoming. At the hearing in the Court of Session in May 2005, undertakings had been given in open court that payment would be made to the defenders. In the light of that undertaking, the court had agreed to continue the defenders' motion for recall of the interim orders. However no payment had been made. Counsel explained that, in the light of the pursuer's conduct to date, the defenders were concerned that the pursuer would be unable to meet their expenses in the event that he was unsuccessful in the contested action of reduction and suspension in the Court of Session (which might well have to go to proof).
 I was
persuaded that the pursuer should be ordained to find caution for expenses in
the sum of г10,000 for the reasons advanced by counsel. I granted an interlocutor ordaining the
pursuer to consign that sum of money by
Further adjustment, and failure to consign г10,000
pursuer enrolled a motion in early December 2005, seeking to have the
cause restored to the Adjustment Roll for a period of 2 weeks. The court allowed a period of
3 weeks. The record closed on
 Lord Glennie
continued the motions to come before me on
 Mr Fairley
gave a brief introduction, recapitulating the procedural history to date. He referred to a recent Inner House decision,
The Bank of Scotland v Kunkel-Griffin,
 The pursuer then addressed the court. He accepted that counsel had accurately narrated the history of the litigations up until the time when his solicitors withdrew from acting. But it was part of his argument that he did not "know the rules". He had managed to attend one hearing, simply because he had called the General Department to ask a question and had been advised of the hearing.
 Even when represented by solicitors, the pursuer had found matters unsatisfactory. The original solicitors had not done what they were instructed to do. The second set of solicitors had not pled the case as instructed. The important point was that the debt was not the pursuer's. That had not been included in the pleadings. The pursuer had never admitted that he owed the defenders anything. He had simply admitted the existence of a debt - owed by the Miclora Trust.
 The pursuer acknowledged that he had been sequestrated. He was now discharged. He was trying to build up his credit-rating. If decree of reduction were granted, he would do what he could to see that the debt was paid on behalf of the Miclora Trust. He asked the court to grant leave to reclaim on the basis that the debt was not owed by him. He had been an undischarged bankrupt at the time when he signed the conditional sale contract with the defenders. He had contacted the defenders, and asked if he could have a loan to buy a car. He was given to understand that it was the defenders' policy not to lend to a bankrupt, whether discharged or not. An application had then been made, involving a copy of the Miclora Trust Deed. The loan had been passed. The pursuer pointed out that it was the defenders who had made a mistake, allowing him to "slip through the net".
asked why he had not attended court on
pursuer advised the court that if the case came to an end that day (
 Mr Fairley responded by submitting that, even if the
pursuer's motion was competent, nothing which the pursuer said suggested that
the court had erred in law in ordering consignation, given the material before
the court on
 The defenders sought absolvitor in respect that caution had not
been lodged. In view of the history of
the litigations, the terms of rule of court 33.10, and the defender's
failure to consign the sum of г10,000 as caution for expenses in
compliance with the interlocutor of