The Scottish Ministers v Stirton & Anor [2013] ScotCS CSIH_81 (11 October 2013)

The Scottish Ministers v Stirton & Anor [2013] ScotCS CSIH_81 (11 October 2013)

The court held that the Lord Ordinary's procedural decisions did not create apparent bias; the definition of extortion adopted was correct in law and supported by evidence; the standard of proof was properly applied; and the recovery order was proportionate and compatible with Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR. The reclaiming motion was refused and the recovery order affirmed.

Citation
[2013] ScotCS CSIH_81
Parties
Petitioner and Respondent: The Scottish Ministers; First Respondent and Reclaimer: Russell Stirton; Third Respondent and Reclaimer: Alexander Anderson's Executor
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
11 October 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Recovery Petition Under Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 / Reclaiming Motion (appeal) Against Recovery Order
Outcome
Reclaiming motion refused; recovery order affirmed.
Legal Topics
Extortion, Money Laundering, Mortgage Fraud, Public Interest Immunity, Standard of Proof, Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR
Civil Recovery Proceeds of Crime Human Rights Extortion Money Laundering Mortgage Fraud Public Interest Immunity Standard of Proof +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Scottish Ministers

Petitioner and Respondent

Russell Stirton

First Respondent and Reclaimer

Alexander Anderson's Executor

Third Respondent and Reclaimer

Procedural Posture

Civil Recovery Petition Under Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 / Reclaiming Motion (appeal) Against Recovery Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Lord Ordinary's procedural decisions created apparent bias
  2. 2 Proper definition and proof of extortion under Scots law
  3. 3 Appropriate standard and quality of proof for civil recovery

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the Lord Ordinary's procedural decisions did not create apparent bias; the definition of extortion adopted was correct in law and supported by evidence; the standard of proof was properly applied; and the recovery order was proportionate and compatible with Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR. The reclaiming motion was refused and the recovery order affirmed.

Court Disposition

Reclaiming motion refused; recovery order affirmed.

Orders

  • Recovery order in respect of three houses, sums at credit on eight bank accounts, a Personal Equity Plan, certain insurance policies and sundry other items, including proceeds of sale of Springburn filling station.