NORTH LANARKSHIRE COUNCIL v. LORRAINE CAIRNS & JASON CAIRNS [2012] ScotSC 51 (24 April 2012)

NORTH LANARKSHIRE COUNCIL v. LORRAINE CAIRNS & JASON CAIRNS [2012] ScotSC 51 (24 April 2012)

A qualifying occupier who has not been sisted as a party before decree is not entitled to apply for recall of decree under Rule 24.1 of the Summary Cause Rules 2002; the statutory and procedural requirements for notice and opportunity to be sisted were met, and there was no breach of Articles 6 or 8 ECHR.

Citation
[2012] ScotSC 51
Parties
Pursuer and Respondent: North Lanarkshire Council; Defender: Mrs Lorraine Cairns; Minuter and Appellant: Jason Cairns
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
24 April 2012
Procedural Posture
Summary Cause Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal to Recall Decree of Ejection
Outcome
Appeal refused
Legal Topics
Recovery of Heritable Property, Summary Cause Rules, Qualifying Occupier Rights, Recall of Decree, Interpretation of 'party' in Procedural Rules, Article 6 ECHR, Article 8 ECHR
Housing Law Civil Procedure Human Rights Recovery of Heritable Property Summary Cause Rules Qualifying Occupier Rights Recall of Decree Interpretation of 'party' in Procedural Rules +2 more

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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

North Lanarkshire Council

Pursuer and Respondent

Mrs Lorraine Cairns

Defender

Jason Cairns

Minuter and Appellant

Procedural Posture

Summary Cause Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal to Recall Decree of Ejection

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a qualifying occupier who was not sisted as a party may apply for recall of decree under Rule 24.1 of the Summary Cause Rules 2002
  2. 2 Whether refusal to allow such recall breaches Articles 6 and 8 ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

A qualifying occupier who has not been sisted as a party before decree is not entitled to apply for recall of decree under Rule 24.1 of the Summary Cause Rules 2002; the statutory and procedural requirements for notice and opportunity to be sisted were met, and there was no breach of Articles 6 or 8 ECHR.

Court Disposition

Appeal refused

Orders

  • Answers to all questions of law in the stated case in the negative
  • Adherence to the Sheriff's interlocutor of 23 January 2012