31
In the present case, he submitted, the obligations contained in the Agreement were not indivisible. The pursuer and Dr Lindberg have separate and distinct interests and are not one party when construing the rights and obligations under the Agreement.
[53] He developed this submission, as follows. Dr Lindberg's interests in the Agreement were limited to its first three paragraphs. Dr Lindberg was concerned merely with his own petition; and it is the first three paragraphs that set out how his dispute with the Lord Lyon will be resolved. He had no interest in any future petitions at the instance of third parties. In distinction to Dr Lindberg, the pursuer had an interest not only in the resolution of the dispute relating to her own petition but also in future petitions at the instance of third parties. The pursuer had an interest in such petitions because of the business of the firm. Dr Lindberg has no interest in the firm and no interest in such future petitions.
[54] Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Agreement set out the terms upon which such future petitions will be granted and who is subject to the jurisdiction of the Lord Lyon. The obligations contained in paragraphs 4 and 5 were distinct and separate from those contained in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the Agreement. The obligations in paragraphs 4 and 5 were severable from those in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3. It is only the pursuer, as a partner in the firm, that has an interest in the obligations imposed upon the defender by paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Agreement.
[55] In the present proceedings, the pursuer is seeking to enforce the obligations imposed upon the defender by paragraph 4(i) of the Agreement. Accordingly, Dr Lindberg does not require to be a pursuer in the present proceedings, in which he has no interest. Dr Lindberg has no interest in paragraph 4(i). Only the pursuer has such an interest. This why the
