Hakeem v. The Secretary Of State For Work And Pensions Child Support Agency [2007] ScotSC 16 (02 May 2007)

Hakeem v. The Secretary Of State For Work And Pensions Child Support Agency [2007] ScotSC 16 (02 May 2007)

The action was incompetent as it was raised as an ordinary action instead of by summary application, contrary to mandatory statutory requirements. The error was substantial, caused prejudice to the respondent, and could not be cured by transfer. The crave for interdict could not stand alone as it was ancillary to the suspension crave, and there was no foundation for personal bar.

Citation
[2007] ScotSC 16
Parties
Pursuer and Appellant: Mohammed Hussain Hakeem; Defender and Respondent: The Secretary of State for Work & Pensions Child Support Agency
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
02 May 2007
Procedural Posture
Appeal (sheriff Court) / Judgment on Appeal Against Dismissal of Action at First Instance
Outcome
Appeal refused; interlocutors of 16 November 2006 and 17 January 2007 adhered to; action dismissed.
Legal Topics
Competency of Proceedings, Summary Application Vs Ordinary Action, Suspension of Diligence, Interdict, Personal Bar, Child Maintenance Enforcement
Civil Procedure Family Law Debt Recovery Competency of Proceedings Summary Application Vs Ordinary Action Suspension of Diligence Interdict Personal Bar +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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohammed Hussain Hakeem

Pursuer and Appellant

The Secretary of State for Work & Pensions Child Support Agency

Defender and Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (sheriff Court) / Judgment on Appeal Against Dismissal of Action at First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the action for suspension and interdict was incompetent as raised as an ordinary action instead of by summary application
  2. 2 Whether the crave for interdict could stand alone based on personal bar

Ratio Decidendi

The action was incompetent as it was raised as an ordinary action instead of by summary application, contrary to mandatory statutory requirements. The error was substantial, caused prejudice to the respondent, and could not be cured by transfer. The crave for interdict could not stand alone as it was ancillary to the suspension crave, and there was no foundation for personal bar.

Court Disposition

Appeal refused; interlocutors of 16 November 2006 and 17 January 2007 adhered to; action dismissed.

Orders

  • Appellant found liable to respondent in expenses of the appeal.
  • Account of expenses to be given in and remitted to the Auditor of Court to tax and report.