Aikman v Bond [2011] ScotCS CSIH_11 (11 February 2011)

Aikman v Bond [2011] ScotCS CSIH_11 (11 February 2011)

The appeal was refused because the only arguable defence was on quantum, the defence of lack of authority was opportunistic and contradicted prior admissions, and the defender's repeated procedural failures and conduct of the case justified refusal to allow the appeal to proceed.

Citation
[2011] ScotCS CSIH_11
Parties
Pursuer and Respondent: Mark Andrew Aikman; Defender and Appellant: Elizabeth Bond
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
11 February 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (damages for Breach of Contract) / Appeal to Inner House, Court of Session
Outcome
Appeal refused
Legal Topics
Damages for Breach of Contract, Missives of Sale, Order for Caution, Appeal Procedure, Legal Aid
Contract Law Civil Procedure Damages for Breach of Contract Missives of Sale Order for Caution Appeal Procedure Legal Aid

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 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mark Andrew Aikman

Pursuer and Respondent

Elizabeth Bond

Defender and Appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (damages for Breach of Contract) / Appeal to Inner House, Court of Session

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the order for caution was appropriate given the defender's financial circumstances
  2. 2 Whether the defender had a stateable defence on the merits, including quantum and authority to contract
  3. 3 Whether procedural failures justified refusal of the appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was refused because the only arguable defence was on quantum, the defence of lack of authority was opportunistic and contradicted prior admissions, and the defender's repeated procedural failures and conduct of the case justified refusal to allow the appeal to proceed.

Court Disposition

Appeal refused

Orders

  • Appeal refused
  • Defender found liable for expenses of the appeal and previous proceedings