DR PRIM SINGH AGAINST BRIAN NAPIER QC [2014] ScotCS CSIH_54 (13 June 2014)

DR PRIM SINGH AGAINST BRIAN NAPIER QC [2014] ScotCS CSIH_54 (13 June 2014)

A note of objection under rule of court 42.4 is not a competent procedure for challenging the general procedure adopted by the Auditor; it is limited to objections to specific items in the taxed account. The appellant's failure to identify specific items and his challenge to the general process, based on the absence of an unredacted ledger, is not competent. No relevant information was withheld, and the Auditor did not rely on any redacted material.

Citation
[2014] ScotCS CSIH_54
Parties
Pursuer and Appellant: Dr Prim Singh; Defender and Respondent: Brian Napier QC
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
13 June 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Post Taxation Objection to Auditor's Report
Outcome
Appellant's motion refused; appellant found liable in expenses of the hearing.
Legal Topics
Taxation of Costs, Objection to Auditor's Report, Court Expenses
Civil Procedure Taxation of Costs Objection to Auditor's Report Court Expenses

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

Parties

Dr Prim Singh

Pursuer and Appellant

Brian Napier QC

Defender and Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Post Taxation Objection to Auditor's Report

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a general procedural challenge to the taxation process is competent under rule of court 42.4
  2. 2 Whether failure to provide an unredacted client ledger invalidates the taxation of expenses

Ratio Decidendi

A note of objection under rule of court 42.4 is not a competent procedure for challenging the general procedure adopted by the Auditor; it is limited to objections to specific items in the taxed account. The appellant's failure to identify specific items and his challenge to the general process, based on the absence of an unredacted ledger, is not competent. No relevant information was withheld, and the Auditor did not rely on any redacted material.

Court Disposition

Appellant's motion refused; appellant found liable in expenses of the hearing.

Orders

  • Appellant's motion to object to Auditor's report refused
  • Appellant found liable for expenses of the hearing