Roddick & Anor v. Katalyst Projects Ltd [2011] ScotSC 19 (22 March 2011)

Roddick & Anor v. Katalyst Projects Ltd [2011] ScotSC 19 (22 March 2011)

The appeal is competent because the words 'of consent' in the interlocutor of 30 September 2010 reflected acquiescence in the inevitable consequence of an adverse judgment, not true consent to decree. There was no abandonment or waiver of appeal rights, and the circumstances are sufficiently unusual to exercise discretion in favour of allowing the appeal.

Citation
[2011] ScotSC 19
Parties
Pursuers: Thomson Roddick & Laurie Limited; Defenders: Katalyst Projects Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
22 March 2011
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Ruling on Competency of Appeal Against Interlocutor
Outcome
Appeal held competent; parties appointed to be heard on merits; expenses of the motion awarded to Defenders; certification for junior counsel granted.
Legal Topics
Competency of Appeal, Interlocutors Pronounced 'of Consent', Sheriff Court Procedure
Civil Procedure Competency of Appeal Interlocutors Pronounced 'of Consent' Sheriff Court Procedure

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thomson Roddick & Laurie Limited

Pursuers

Katalyst Projects Limited

Defenders

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Ruling on Competency of Appeal Against Interlocutor

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an appeal is competent against an interlocutor pronounced 'of consent'
  2. 2 Whether the words 'of consent' in the interlocutor preclude appeal without leave

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is competent because the words 'of consent' in the interlocutor of 30 September 2010 reflected acquiescence in the inevitable consequence of an adverse judgment, not true consent to decree. There was no abandonment or waiver of appeal rights, and the circumstances are sufficiently unusual to exercise discretion in favour of allowing the appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal held competent; parties appointed to be heard on merits; expenses of the motion awarded to Defenders; certification for junior counsel granted.

Orders

  • Grants Part 1 of Motion No. 7/3 of Process
  • Holds proposed appeal in terms of Note of Appeal No.19 of Process is competent