MESSRS J & E SHEPHERD AGAINST PAUL DAVID LETLEY [2018] ScotCS CSIH_8 (02 February 2018)

MESSRS J & E SHEPHERD AGAINST PAUL DAVID LETLEY [2018] ScotCS CSIH_8 (02 February 2018)

The defender was ultimately successful on appeal as the sheriff had not found that Dr Keenan was a person with whom the defender had 'had dealings', a necessary element for breach of interdict. However, expenses were allocated by procedural step: the pursuers were awarded expenses for the debate before Sheriff Mundy; the defender was awarded expenses for the proof and later appeals where he succeeded; no expenses were awarded for unnecessary procedural steps caused by the defender's choice of appellate forum. Certification for junior counsel was granted, but no uplift in solicitors' fees was justified.

Citation
[2018] ScotCS CSIH_8
Parties
Pursuers and Respondents: Messrs J & E Shepherd; Defender and Appellant: Paul David Letley
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
02 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Summary Application (civil) / Appeal (expenses and Certification Motions After Substantive Appeal Allowed)
Outcome
Motions determined as follows: certification for junior counsel granted; uplift in solicitors' fees refused; expenses allocated by procedural step as detailed in the judgment.
Legal Topics
Restrictive Covenants, Interim Interdicts, Breach of Interdict, Judicial Expenses, Appeal Procedure
Civil Procedure Contract Law Partnership Law Restrictive Covenants Interim Interdicts Breach of Interdict Judicial Expenses Appeal Procedure

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Messrs J & E Shepherd

Pursuers and Respondents

Paul David Letley

Defender and Appellant

Procedural Posture

Summary Application (civil) / Appeal (expenses and Certification Motions After Substantive Appeal Allowed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defender breached the terms of an interim interdict by soliciting a person with whom he had 'had dealings' during partnership
  2. 2 Whether the defender is entitled to expenses following success on appeal
  3. 3 Whether the cause should be certified for junior counsel and whether an uplift in solicitors' fees is justified

Ratio Decidendi

The defender was ultimately successful on appeal as the sheriff had not found that Dr Keenan was a person with whom the defender had 'had dealings', a necessary element for breach of interdict. However, expenses were allocated by procedural step: the pursuers were awarded expenses for the debate before Sheriff Mundy; the defender was awarded expenses for the proof and later appeals where he succeeded; no expenses were awarded for unnecessary procedural steps caused by the defender's choice of appellate forum. Certification for junior counsel was granted, but no uplift in solicitors' fees was justified.

Court Disposition

Motions determined as follows: certification for junior counsel granted; uplift in solicitors' fees refused; expenses allocated by procedural step as detailed in the judgment.

Orders

  • Certify the sheriff court procedure as suitable for the employment of junior counsel.
  • Refuse motion for 20% uplift in solicitors' fees.