SHANLEY, RECLAIMING MOTION BY AGAINST CLYDESDALE BANK PLC [2018] ScotCS CSIH_32 (27 April 2018)

SHANLEY, RECLAIMING MOTION BY AGAINST CLYDESDALE BANK PLC [2018] ScotCS CSIH_32 (27 April 2018)

The dismissal of the action was unreasonable and disproportionate because the failures were primarily those of the pursuer's solicitors, not the pursuer personally, and the prejudice to the bank was overstated. The court's criticisms of the pursuer were not sufficiently supported by the facts, and the sanction of dismissal was not justified in the circumstances.

Citation
[2018] ScotCS CSIH_32
Parties
Pursuer and Reclaimer: James Michael Shanley; Defender and Respondent: Clydesdale Bank PLC
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
27 April 2018
Procedural Posture
Reclaiming Motion (appeal) in Commercial Action for Damages / Appeal Against Dismissal and Related Interlocutors
Outcome
Appeal allowed; dismissal quashed; related interlocutors quashed; case remitted for further procedure; no expenses awarded for appeal.
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Procedural Default, Sanctions for Non Compliance With Court Orders, Joint Bundle Preparation, Agent and Client Expenses, Commercial Court Procedure
Civil Procedure Banking Law Dismissal for Procedural Default Sanctions for Non Compliance With Court Orders Joint Bundle Preparation Agent and Client Expenses Commercial Court Procedure

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

Parties

James Michael Shanley

Pursuer and Reclaimer

Clydesdale Bank PLC

Defender and Respondent

Procedural Posture

Reclaiming Motion (appeal) in Commercial Action for Damages / Appeal Against Dismissal and Related Interlocutors

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether dismissal of the action for failure to comply with procedural orders was justified
  2. 2 Whether the failures were attributable to the party or his solicitors
  3. 3 Whether the court's exercise of discretion in dismissing the action was reasonable and proportionate

Ratio Decidendi

The dismissal of the action was unreasonable and disproportionate because the failures were primarily those of the pursuer's solicitors, not the pursuer personally, and the prejudice to the bank was overstated. The court's criticisms of the pursuer were not sufficiently supported by the facts, and the sanction of dismissal was not justified in the circumstances.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; dismissal quashed; related interlocutors quashed; case remitted for further procedure; no expenses awarded for appeal.

Orders

  • Quash the interlocutor of 13 September 2017 dismissing the action
  • Quash paragraphs 3 and 4 of the interlocutor of 7 September 2017 (expenses)