LINDSAYS WS v. GRAHAM SENIOR-MILNE [2011] ScotSC 136 (24 August 2011)

LINDSAYS WS v. GRAHAM SENIOR-MILNE [2011] ScotSC 136 (24 August 2011)

The appeal was refused because the appellant submitted to the court's jurisdiction by entering appearance and not challenging jurisdiction until after judgment; no negligence was established against the pursuers or senior counsel due to lack of expert evidence; the sheriff's procedural decisions, including ordaining the appellant to lead at proof and awarding expenses, were within discretion and in accordance with law and rules.

Citation
[2011] ScotSC 136
Parties
Pursuers and Respondents: Lindsays, WS; Defender and Appellant: Graham Senior-Milne
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
24 August 2011
Procedural Posture
Summary Cause (civil) / Appeal by Stated Case From Sheriff's Decision
Outcome
Appeal refused; sheriff's interlocutors adhered to.
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction, Professional Fees, Standard of Care, Burden of Proof, Award of Expenses
Contract Law Professional Negligence Civil Procedure Jurisdiction Professional Fees Standard of Care Burden of Proof Award of Expenses

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lindsays, WS

Pursuers and Respondents

Graham Senior-Milne

Defender and Appellant

Procedural Posture

Summary Cause (civil) / Appeal by Stated Case From Sheriff's Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sheriff court had jurisdiction over the defender/appellant
  2. 2 Whether the pursuers/respondents were entitled to recover professional fees and outlays
  3. 3 Whether the pursuers and senior counsel acted negligently

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was refused because the appellant submitted to the court's jurisdiction by entering appearance and not challenging jurisdiction until after judgment; no negligence was established against the pursuers or senior counsel due to lack of expert evidence; the sheriff's procedural decisions, including ordaining the appellant to lead at proof and awarding expenses, were within discretion and in accordance with law and rules.

Court Disposition

Appeal refused; sheriff's interlocutors adhered to.

Orders

  • Answers to first five questions in the stated case in the negative.
  • Declined to answer sixth question as unnecessary.