26
The termination issue
[41] Mr Mure suggested that if paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Agreement were a contractual agreement, he submitted that they are not a compromise of the dispute that was before the Court of Session in 2008 between the pursuer, Dr Lindberg and Lyon Blair in the form of the Hamilton and Lindberg judicial reviews. Insofar as those paragraphs constituted a contractual agreement capable of binding future holders of the office (which the defender denied), being an agreement of indefinite duration it may be terminated by any party giving notice. On this basis, notice was given by means of (i) the Note in Menking and (ii) the correspondence in 2017 (referred to in para [24], above.)
[42] On a proper interpretation of the Note in Menking, the policy described there is not in accordance with the pursuer's interpretation of the Agreement and represented a change in policy. Putting it another way, Mr Mure submitted that the pursuer's complaint about the omission of the words "baron of [x]" was not founded on the Agreement and, in any event, this had already been effected by the defender in Menking.
[43] The pursuer avers that a reasonable period of notice would have been one year. On a proper interpretation of the Note in Menking, the policy described there is not in accordance with the pursuer's interpretation of the Agreement. It clearly represented a change of policy set out in a public judgment, of which the firm and the pursuer were well aware. Moreover, on 23 October 2017 the defender advised the pursuer's solicitor of a further change in policy. Mr Mure noted that some 18 months had now elapsed since that letter was issued. In these circumstances, the provisions in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Agreement are not binding upon the defender.
