Santander Consumer (UK) Plc against Renata Dikmone (Sheriff Appeal Court Civil) [2026] SACCIV 27 (23 April 2026)

Santander Consumer (UK) Plc against Renata Dikmone (Sheriff Appeal Court Civil) [2026] SACCIV 27 (23 April 2026)

The sheriff erred in law by admitting evidence of agency not supported by pleadings, invalidating the finding that the credit intermediary was agent for the appellant. The respondent did not afford the appellant an opportunity to repair or replace the vehicle, so the statutory right of rejection did not arise. As all sums due were recovered before proof, the appellant was not entitled to further sums or interest, and declarator served no practical purpose. The counterclaim and cross-appeal fell for want of insistence.

Citation
[2026] SACCIV 27
Parties
Pursuer, Appellant and Cross Respondent: Santander Consumer (UK) Plc; Defender, Respondent and Cross Appellant: Renata Dikmone, as executrix dative of the late Ramunas Dikmonas
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
23 April 2026
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment on Disposal and Expenses
Outcome
Appeal allowed; sheriff's interlocutor recalled; principal action and counterclaim disposed of as specified; partial award of expenses.
Legal Topics
Consumer Rights Act 2015, Right to Reject Goods, Agency, Declarator, Expenses, Counterclaim, Repossession, Interest on Sums Due
Contract Law Consumer Law Civil Procedure Consumer Rights Act 2015 Right to Reject Goods Agency Declarator Expenses +3 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 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Santander Consumer (UK) Plc

Pursuer, Appellant and Cross Respondent

Renata Dikmone, as executrix dative of the late Ramunas Dikmonas

Defender, Respondent and Cross Appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment on Disposal and Expenses

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sheriff erred in finding an agency relationship between the credit intermediary and the appellant
  2. 2 Whether the respondent validly rejected the vehicle under the Consumer Rights Act 2015
  3. 3 Whether the appellant was entitled to decree for sums or interest after recovery of all sums due

Ratio Decidendi

The sheriff erred in law by admitting evidence of agency not supported by pleadings, invalidating the finding that the credit intermediary was agent for the appellant. The respondent did not afford the appellant an opportunity to repair or replace the vehicle, so the statutory right of rejection did not arise. As all sums due were recovered before proof, the appellant was not entitled to further sums or interest, and declarator served no practical purpose. The counterclaim and cross-appeal fell for want of insistence.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; sheriff's interlocutor recalled; principal action and counterclaim disposed of as specified; partial award of expenses.

Orders

  • Recall the sheriff's interlocutor of 27 September 2022.
  • Repel the pleas-in-law for the appellant and refuse the appellant's first and second craves.