Woodland Trust v MacMillan [2001] ScotCS 236 (17 October 2001)

Woodland Trust v MacMillan [2001] ScotCS 236 (17 October 2001)

The challenged averments were irrelevant, unfocused, unsupported by evidence, or collateral and did not assist in determining the truth of the statements at issue; therefore, they were excluded from probation.

Citation
[2001] ScotCS 236
Parties
Pursuer: The Woodland Trust; Defender: Angus MacMillan
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
17 October 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil / Procedure Roll Hearing on Relevancy of Averments
Outcome
Averments specified in the pursuer's Note of Argument excluded from probation; proof before answer allowed quoad ultra; defender to lead at proof.
Legal Topics
Interdict, Relevancy of Pleadings, Probation of Averments
Civil Procedure Defamation Interdict Relevancy of Pleadings Probation of Averments

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Woodland Trust

Pursuer

Angus MacMillan

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Procedure Roll Hearing on Relevancy of Averments

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether certain averments in the defender's pleadings are irrelevant and should be excluded from probation
  2. 2 Whether the defender's proposed amendment should be allowed

Ratio Decidendi

The challenged averments were irrelevant, unfocused, unsupported by evidence, or collateral and did not assist in determining the truth of the statements at issue; therefore, they were excluded from probation.

Court Disposition

Averments specified in the pursuer's Note of Argument excluded from probation; proof before answer allowed quoad ultra; defender to lead at proof.

Orders

  • Specified averments deleted from the Record
  • Minute of Amendment not allowed