Clarke v. MacKenzie & Anor [2005] ScotCS CSIH_7 (14 January 2005)

Clarke v. MacKenzie & Anor [2005] ScotCS CSIH_7 (14 January 2005)

The sheriff was entitled to refuse the late summary application because the delay was inadequately explained, the reasons advanced did not amount to special cause, and the sheriff properly considered relevant factors including prejudice to the defenders. The sheriff did not misdirect himself or exercise his discretion unreasonably.

Citation
[2005] ScotCS CSIH_7
Parties
Pursuer and Appellant: Robert Anthony Clarke; First Defender and Respondent: Ian K. MacKenzie, O.B.E.; Second Defenders and Respondents: The Church of Scotland General Trustees
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
14 January 2005
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From Sheriff Court Decision on Summary Application Under Paragraph 24 of Schedule 7 to the Agricultural Holdings (scotland) Act 1991
Outcome
Appeal refused; sheriff's interlocutor adhered to; action dismissed.
Legal Topics
Summary Application Time Limits, Special Cause for Late Application, Arbitration Misconduct, Irritancy of Lease, Judicial Discretion
Civil Procedure Arbitration Land Law Summary Application Time Limits Special Cause for Late Application Arbitration Misconduct Irritancy of Lease Judicial Discretion

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Anthony Clarke

Pursuer and Appellant

Ian K. MacKenzie, O.B.E.

First Defender and Respondent

The Church of Scotland General Trustees

Second Defenders and Respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal From Sheriff Court Decision on Summary Application Under Paragraph 24 of Schedule 7 to the Agricultural Holdings (scotland) Act 1991

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sheriff erred in refusing to allow a late summary application under Rule 2.6(3) of the Act of Sederunt on grounds of special cause
  2. 2 Whether prejudice to the defenders from delay was a relevant factor
  3. 3 Whether the sheriff failed to consider prejudice to the pursuer if the application was refused

Ratio Decidendi

The sheriff was entitled to refuse the late summary application because the delay was inadequately explained, the reasons advanced did not amount to special cause, and the sheriff properly considered relevant factors including prejudice to the defenders. The sheriff did not misdirect himself or exercise his discretion unreasonably.

Court Disposition

Appeal refused; sheriff's interlocutor adhered to; action dismissed.

Orders

  • Refusal of appeal
  • Adherence to sheriff's interlocutor of 2 July 2003