In the matter of the Baronetcy of Pringle of Stichill

In the matter of the Baronetcy of Pringle of Stichill

The right to succeed to the baronetcy of Stichill is governed by Scots law and vests iure sanguinis. DNA evidence demonstrates to a high degree of probability that Norman Hamilton Pringle was not the son of the eighth baronet, rebutting the presumption of legitimacy. Prescription, delay, breach of confidence, and data protection do not bar Murray's claim. Therefore, Murray is entitled to be entered as the Baronet of Pringle of Stichill.

Parties
Claimant: Simon Robert Pringle; Claimant: Norman Murray Archibald MacGregor Pringle; Deceased Party: Sir Steuart Robert Pringle
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 June 2016
Procedural Posture
Referral Under Section 4 of the Judicial Committee Act 1833 / Judgment
Outcome
Murray is entitled to be entered as the Baronet of Pringle of Stichill; DNA evidence is admissible.
Legal Topics
Baronetcy Entitlement, DNA Evidence Admissibility, Prescription, Mora, Taciturnity and Acquiescence, Breach of Confidence, Data Protection
Succession Titles of Honour Evidence Data Protection Baronetcy Entitlement DNA Evidence Admissibility Prescription Mora, Taciturnity and Acquiescence +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 34 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Simon Robert Pringle

Claimant

Norman Murray Archibald MacGregor Pringle

Claimant

Sir Steuart Robert Pringle

Deceased Party

Procedural Posture

Referral Under Section 4 of the Judicial Committee Act 1833 / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Who is entitled to be entered on the Official Roll of the Baronetage as the Baronet of Pringle of Stichill
  2. 2 Whether DNA evidence should be admitted to determine entitlement
  3. 3 Whether prescription, delay, breach of confidence, or data protection bar the claim

Ratio Decidendi

The right to succeed to the baronetcy of Stichill is governed by Scots law and vests iure sanguinis. DNA evidence demonstrates to a high degree of probability that Norman Hamilton Pringle was not the son of the eighth baronet, rebutting the presumption of legitimacy. Prescription, delay, breach of confidence, and data protection do not bar Murray's claim. Therefore, Murray is entitled to be entered as the Baronet of Pringle of Stichill.

Court Disposition

Murray is entitled to be entered as the Baronet of Pringle of Stichill; DNA evidence is admissible.

Orders

  • Norman Murray Archibald MacGregor Pringle to be entered on the Official Roll of the Baronetage as the Baronet of Pringle of Stichill.
  • DNA evidence obtained from Sir Steuart Pringle is admitted for determination of entitlement.