Chapman v. Money Wise (Scotland) Ltd [2002] ScotSC 212 (05 December 2002)

Chapman v. Money Wise (Scotland) Ltd [2002] ScotSC 212 (05 December 2002)

The defenders failed to comply with the interlocutor requiring them to lodge proper accounts of intromissions; the documents lodged were inadequate and not capable of fulfilling the order. The defenders also failed to answer the pursuer's objections or amend their defences. The sheriff was entitled to find the defenders in default and grant decree by default for the sums craved, and did not err in refusing further time given the procedural history and repeated indulgence.

Citation
[2002] ScotSC 212
Parties
Pursuer and Respondent: James Chapman; Defenders and Appellants: Money Wise (Scotland) Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
05 December 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil (accounting/contract) / Appeal From Interlocutor Granting Decree by Default
Outcome
Appeal refused; decree by default against defenders adhered to; defenders found liable in expenses of the appeal.
Legal Topics
Default Judgment, Accounting of Intromissions, Compliance With Court Orders, Sanctions for Procedural Default
Contract Law Civil Procedure Default Judgment Accounting of Intromissions Compliance With Court Orders Sanctions for Procedural Default

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Chapman

Pursuer and Respondent

Money Wise (Scotland) Limited

Defenders and Appellants

Procedural Posture

Civil (accounting/contract) / Appeal From Interlocutor Granting Decree by Default

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defenders were in default for failing to comply with an order to lodge proper accounts of intromissions
  2. 2 Whether it was competent and appropriate for the sheriff to grant decree by default for the sums craved
  3. 3 Whether the sheriff erred in the exercise of discretion by refusing further time to the defenders

Ratio Decidendi

The defenders failed to comply with the interlocutor requiring them to lodge proper accounts of intromissions; the documents lodged were inadequate and not capable of fulfilling the order. The defenders also failed to answer the pursuer's objections or amend their defences. The sheriff was entitled to find the defenders in default and grant decree by default for the sums craved, and did not err in refusing further time given the procedural history and repeated indulgence.

Court Disposition

Appeal refused; decree by default against defenders adhered to; defenders found liable in expenses of the appeal.

Orders

  • Refusal of appeal and adherence to sheriff's interlocutor of 19 September 2002
  • Refusal of defenders' motion to amend