Glynhill Hotel Ltd v Dundas & Wilson [2011] ScotCS CSOH_195 (8 November 2011)

Glynhill Hotel Ltd v Dundas & Wilson [2011] ScotCS CSOH_195 (8 November 2011)

The pleadings did not raise or involve any dispute about the applicant's professional reputation; any issues relating to the applicant were collateral and not the subject of the contestation between the parties. Article 6 ECHR did not require intervention, as the outcome of the case was not directly decisive of the applicant's civil rights. The application for leave to intervene was therefore refused.

Citation
[2011] ScotCS CSOH_195
Parties
Pursuer: Glynhill Hotel Ltd; Defender: Dundas & Wilson C. S. LLP; Applicant (member of Faculty of Advocates Seeking to Intervene): R Dunlop QC; Solicitors for Pursuer: Messrs Fleming and Reid
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
08 November 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil (application for Leave to Intervene) / Interlocutory (motion for Leave to Intervene Prior to Proof Before Answer)
Outcome
Application for leave to intervene refused.
Legal Topics
Intervention by Third Parties, Professional Reputation, Article 6 ECHR, Inherent Jurisdiction, Collateral Issues in Litigation
Civil Procedure Intervention by Third Parties Professional Reputation Article 6 ECHR Inherent Jurisdiction Collateral Issues in Litigation

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

Parties

Glynhill Hotel Ltd

Pursuer

Dundas & Wilson C. S. LLP

Defender

R Dunlop QC

Applicant (member of Faculty of Advocates Seeking to Intervene)

Messrs Fleming and Reid

Solicitors for Pursuer

Procedural Posture

Civil (application for Leave to Intervene) / Interlocutory (motion for Leave to Intervene Prior to Proof Before Answer)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a third party (advocate) may intervene in a civil action to protect professional reputation allegedly impugned by pleadings
  2. 2 Whether Article 6 ECHR requires such intervention to ensure a fair hearing

Ratio Decidendi

The pleadings did not raise or involve any dispute about the applicant's professional reputation; any issues relating to the applicant were collateral and not the subject of the contestation between the parties. Article 6 ECHR did not require intervention, as the outcome of the case was not directly decisive of the applicant's civil rights. The application for leave to intervene was therefore refused.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to intervene refused.

Orders

  • Motion for leave to intervene by the applicant is refused.