Neil McCallum and another against Andrew Higgins (Sheriff Appeal Court Civil) [2026] SACCIV 20 (28 January 2026)

Neil McCallum and another against Andrew Higgins (Sheriff Appeal Court Civil) [2026] SACCIV 20 (28 January 2026)

The sheriff's findings that Mr Higgins impeded the McCallums' servitude rights were supported by evidence, and the sheriff's approach to the evidence, though pragmatic regarding video footage, did not render the decision irrational or unjustified. The appellant failed to demonstrate that the sheriff's conclusions were not reasonably open to him on the evidence.

Citation
[2026] SACCIV 20
Parties
Pursuers and Respondents: Neil McCallum and Lorna McCallum; Defender and Appellant: Andrew Higgins
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
28 January 2026
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal refused
Legal Topics
Servitude Rights, Interdict, Obstruction of Access, Evidentiary Procedure
Property Law Civil Procedure Servitude Rights Interdict Obstruction of Access Evidentiary 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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Neil McCallum and Lorna McCallum

Pursuers and Respondents

Andrew Higgins

Defender and Appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sheriff erred in granting interdict against the appellant for impeding servitude rights of access
  2. 2 Whether the sheriff failed to consider relevant evidence, particularly video evidence, and submissions by the appellant

Ratio Decidendi

The sheriff's findings that Mr Higgins impeded the McCallums' servitude rights were supported by evidence, and the sheriff's approach to the evidence, though pragmatic regarding video footage, did not render the decision irrational or unjustified. The appellant failed to demonstrate that the sheriff's conclusions were not reasonably open to him on the evidence.

Court Disposition

Appeal refused

Orders

  • Interdict against Mr Higgins from preventing, obstructing, or impeding the McCallums or their agents from effecting deliveries or carrying out works on the property remains in force.
  • Parties to make written submissions on expenses within 21 days if desired.