MESSRS J & E SHEPHERD AGAINST PAUL DAVID LETLEY [2017] ScotCS CSIH_78 (12 December 2017)

MESSRS J & E SHEPHERD AGAINST PAUL DAVID LETLEY [2017] ScotCS CSIH_78 (12 December 2017)

The absence of an express finding in fact that the defender had 'dealings' with Dr Keenan is fatal to the finding of breach of interdict; such a finding is necessary in quasi-criminal proceedings and cannot be substituted by ambiguous or contradictory pleadings.

Citation
[2017] ScotCS CSIH_78
Parties
Pursuers and Respondents: Messrs J & E Shepherd; Defender and Appellant: Paul David Letley
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
12 December 2017
Procedural Posture
Appeal Against Interlocutor (civil, Summary Application) / Appeal Judgment From Inner House, Court of Session
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Breach of Interdict, Summary Application, Findings in Fact, Solicitation of Custom, Interpretation of Court Orders
Civil Procedure Contract Law Breach of Interdict Summary Application Findings in Fact Solicitation of Custom Interpretation of Court Orders

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Messrs J & E Shepherd

Pursuers and Respondents

Paul David Letley

Defender and Appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal Against Interlocutor (civil, Summary Application) / Appeal Judgment From Inner House, Court of Session

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sheriff was entitled to find the defender in breach of interim interdict without an express finding that the defender had 'dealings' with Dr Keenan
  2. 2 Whether the absence of a finding in fact regarding 'dealings' is fatal to the finding of breach
  3. 3 Whether admissions in pleadings can substitute for findings in fact in quasi-criminal proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The absence of an express finding in fact that the defender had 'dealings' with Dr Keenan is fatal to the finding of breach of interdict; such a finding is necessary in quasi-criminal proceedings and cannot be substituted by ambiguous or contradictory pleadings.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Recall the interlocutors of the Sheriff Principal dated 18 July 2016 and 27 October 2016
  • Recall the undated interlocutor of the sheriff finding breach of interdict