JUDGMENT BY SHERIFF PRINCIPAL C.A.L. SCOTT IN THE CAUSE ALEC CAIRNEY AGAINST GLASGOW CITY COUNCIL [2014] ScotSC 63 (15 July 2014)

JUDGMENT BY SHERIFF PRINCIPAL C.A.L. SCOTT IN THE CAUSE ALEC CAIRNEY AGAINST GLASGOW CITY COUNCIL [2014] ScotSC 63 (15 July 2014)

The sheriff principal held that rule 3.1.2(2)(c) had no function in the present proceedings as no 'dawn raid' order was sought, and compliance with its terms was unnecessary. The sheriff correctly applied the approach in Manning v Manning, and the appeal was refused.

Citation
[2014] ScotSC 63
Parties
Pursuer: Alec Cairney; Defenders: Glasgow City Council
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
15 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Interlocutor Refusing Order for Recovery of Documents
Outcome
Appeal refused
Legal Topics
Order for Recovery of Documents, Compliance With Procedural Rules, Summary Applications, Administration of Justice (scotland) Act 1972
Civil Procedure Order for Recovery of Documents Compliance With Procedural Rules Summary Applications Administration of Justice (scotland) Act 1972

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

Parties

Alec Cairney

Pursuer

Glasgow City Council

Defenders

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Interlocutor Refusing Order for Recovery of Documents

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for recovery of documents was incompetent due to non-compliance with procedural rules
  2. 2 Interpretation of rule 3.1.2(2)(c) and 3.1.3(a) of the Act of Sederunt 1999
  3. 3 Relevance of availability of documents under the Environmental Information (Scotland) Regulations 2004

Ratio Decidendi

The sheriff principal held that rule 3.1.2(2)(c) had no function in the present proceedings as no 'dawn raid' order was sought, and compliance with its terms was unnecessary. The sheriff correctly applied the approach in Manning v Manning, and the appeal was refused.

Court Disposition

Appeal refused

Orders

  • Sheriff's interlocutor of 14 March 2014 adhered to
  • Defenders found liable to pursuer in expenses of the appeal