JOHNSTONE & CLARK HEATING v. MR J HALE [2013] ScotSC 69 (18 September 2013)

JOHNSTONE & CLARK HEATING v. MR J HALE [2013] ScotSC 69 (18 September 2013)

The appeal was refused because the defender failed to provide any evidence of illness or other valid reason for non-attendance at the proof diet, and the sheriff was entitled to exercise discretion to grant decree by default and approve expenses. No point of law or procedural error was established.

Citation
[2013] ScotSC 69
Parties
Pursuers and Respondents: Johnstone & Clark Heating Limited; Defender and Appellant: Mr J Hale
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
18 September 2013
Procedural Posture
Summary Cause Appeal / Appeal From Decree by Default and Assessment of Expenses
Outcome
Appeal refused; sheriff's interlocutors adhered to.
Legal Topics
Default Judgment, Appeal Procedure, Summary Cause Rules, Counterclaim, Assessment of Expenses
Civil Procedure Contract Law Default Judgment Appeal Procedure Summary Cause Rules Counterclaim Assessment of Expenses

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Johnstone & Clark Heating Limited

Pursuers and Respondents

Mr J Hale

Defender and Appellant

Procedural Posture

Summary Cause Appeal / Appeal From Decree by Default and Assessment of Expenses

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sheriff erred in granting decree by default when the defender failed to attend due to alleged illness
  2. 2 Whether the pursuers were entitled to decree and expenses
  3. 3 Whether the correct party was sued

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was refused because the defender failed to provide any evidence of illness or other valid reason for non-attendance at the proof diet, and the sheriff was entitled to exercise discretion to grant decree by default and approve expenses. No point of law or procedural error was established.

Court Disposition

Appeal refused; sheriff's interlocutors adhered to.

Orders

  • Defender and appellant found liable to pursuers and respondents in expenses of the appeal.
  • Matter referred to Sheriff Clerk for assessment of expenses.