MARTIN JAMES KEATINGS AGAINST THE ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND AND OTHERS [2013] ScotCS CSIH_70 (30 July 2020)

MARTIN JAMES KEATINGS AGAINST THE ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND AND OTHERS [2013] ScotCS CSIH_70 (30 July 2020)

The motion for a protective expenses order is refused because, although the case has real prospects of success and raises an issue of general public importance, the public interest does not require resolution of the issue in these proceedings, and the majority of the Corner House criteria are not met. The pursuer has access to significant crowdfunding, has an indirect financial interest, and would not discontinue proceedings if the order is not made. The court is not satisfied it is fair and just to grant the PEO.

Citation
[2013] CSIH 70
Parties
Pursuer: Martin James Keatings; First Defender: Advocate General for Scotland; Second Defender: Lord Advocate; Third Defender: Scottish Ministers
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
30 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Ordinary Action / Motion for Protective Expenses Order
Outcome
Motion for protective expenses order refused
Legal Topics
Protective Expenses Orders, Legislative Competence, Crowdfunding in Litigation, Public Interest Litigation
Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Protective Expenses Orders Legislative Competence Crowdfunding in Litigation Public Interest 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 5 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Martin James Keatings

Pursuer

Advocate General for Scotland

First Defender

Lord Advocate

Second Defender

Scottish Ministers

Third Defender

Procedural Posture

Ordinary Action / Motion for Protective Expenses Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether criteria for grant of a protective expenses order (PEO) at common law are met
  2. 2 Whether the public interest requires resolution of the issue of Scottish Parliament's power to legislate for an independence referendum in these proceedings
  3. 3 Whether the pursuer has a private or financial interest in the outcome

Ratio Decidendi

The motion for a protective expenses order is refused because, although the case has real prospects of success and raises an issue of general public importance, the public interest does not require resolution of the issue in these proceedings, and the majority of the Corner House criteria are not met. The pursuer has access to significant crowdfunding, has an indirect financial interest, and would not discontinue proceedings if the order is not made. The court is not satisfied it is fair and just to grant the PEO.

Court Disposition

Motion for protective expenses order refused

Orders

  • Refusal of pursuer’s motion for a protective expenses order against all defenders