Marion Hamilton against Dryfe Vets LTD (Sheriff Court Civil) [2026] SCDUM 41 (26 March 2026)

Marion Hamilton against Dryfe Vets LTD (Sheriff Court Civil) [2026] SCDUM 41 (26 March 2026)

The court found that the pursuer's failure to prove she was the driver did not amount to fraudulent representation or manifestly unreasonable conduct under section 8(4) of the 2018 Act; being disbelieved or unsuccessful is insufficient to disapply QOCS protection, and no specific finding of fraud or exceptional misconduct was warranted.

Citation
[2026] SCDUM 41
Parties
Pursuer: Marion Hamilton; Defender: Dryfe Vets Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
26 March 2026
Procedural Posture
Civil (personal Injury/reparation) / Post Judgment Motion on Expenses
Outcome
Defender's motion for expenses refused; no expenses due to or by either party for the cause; defender liable to pursuer for expenses of the motion.
Legal Topics
Expenses (costs), Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Manifestly Unreasonable Conduct, Qualified One Way Costs Shifting (qocs), Statutory Interpretation
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Expenses (costs) Fraudulent Misrepresentation Manifestly Unreasonable Conduct Qualified One Way Costs Shifting (qocs) Statutory Interpretation

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Marion Hamilton

Pursuer

Dryfe Vets Limited

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil (personal Injury/reparation) / Post Judgment Motion on Expenses

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer made a fraudulent representation or acted manifestly unreasonably so as to lose QOCS protection under section 8(4) of the Civil Litigation (Expenses and Group Proceedings) (Scotland) Act 2018
  2. 2 Whether the defender is entitled to an award of expenses against the pursuer

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the pursuer's failure to prove she was the driver did not amount to fraudulent representation or manifestly unreasonable conduct under section 8(4) of the 2018 Act; being disbelieved or unsuccessful is insufficient to disapply QOCS protection, and no specific finding of fraud or exceptional misconduct was warranted.

Court Disposition

Defender's motion for expenses refused; no expenses due to or by either party for the cause; defender liable to pursuer for expenses of the motion.

Orders

  • Refusal of defender's motion for expenses of the cause.
  • No expenses due to or by either party for the cause.