The Lord Advocate v MacKie & Anor [2015] ScotCS CSIH_88 (08 December 2015)

The Lord Advocate v MacKie & Anor [2015] ScotCS CSIH_88 (08 December 2015)

There was no manifest injustice in the Lord Ordinary's refusal of expenses to the second respondent. The petition was necessitated by the first respondent's failure to pay the confiscation order, and any expenses should fall on him. The court's discretion on expenses was properly exercised, and the reclaiming motion disclosed no basis for interference.

Citation
[2015] ScotCS CSIH_88
Parties
Petitioner and Respondent: The Lord Advocate; First Respondent: Gary Mackie; Second Respondent and Reclaimer: Diane McColm
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
08 December 2015
Procedural Posture
Reclaiming Motion (appeal) in Petition Proceedings / Appeal Against Interlocutor Refusing Expenses
Outcome
Reclaiming motion refused
Legal Topics
Proceeds of Crime, Confiscation Orders, Expenses in Litigation, Legal Aid Clawback
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Proceeds of Crime Confiscation Orders Expenses in Litigation Legal Aid Clawback

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

Parties

The Lord Advocate

Petitioner and Respondent

Gary Mackie

First Respondent

Diane McColm

Second Respondent and Reclaimer

Procedural Posture

Reclaiming Motion (appeal) in Petition Proceedings / Appeal Against Interlocutor Refusing Expenses

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Lord Ordinary erred in refusing the second respondent's motion for expenses against the petitioner
  2. 2 Whether the court's discretion on expenses was properly exercised
  3. 3 Whether the petition was incompetent or irrelevant regarding the second respondent's property

Ratio Decidendi

There was no manifest injustice in the Lord Ordinary's refusal of expenses to the second respondent. The petition was necessitated by the first respondent's failure to pay the confiscation order, and any expenses should fall on him. The court's discretion on expenses was properly exercised, and the reclaiming motion disclosed no basis for interference.

Court Disposition

Reclaiming motion refused

Orders

  • No expenses due to or by either the petitioner or the second respondent