Boyd v Fortune [2014] ScotCS CSIH_93 (11 November 2014)

Boyd v Fortune [2014] ScotCS CSIH_93 (11 November 2014)

Appellant failed to provide a sufficient and credible explanation for non-attendance and failure to instruct representation; medical evidence was inadequate and inspecific; procedural requirements were not met; appeal was deemed abandoned and reponing motion refused.

Citation
[2014] ScotCS CSIH_93
Parties
Pursuer and Respondent: Jamie Boyd; Defender and Appellant: Mark Fortune
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
11 November 2014
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Summary Application / Motion to Repone Appeal Deemed Abandoned
Outcome
Reponing motion refused; appeal remains abandoned.
Legal Topics
Tenancy Deposit Schemes, Appeal Procedure, Reponing Motions
Civil Procedure Landlord and Tenant Tenancy Deposit Schemes Appeal Procedure Reponing Motions

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

Jamie Boyd

Pursuer and Respondent

Mark Fortune

Defender and Appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Summary Application / Motion to Repone Appeal Deemed Abandoned

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellant provided sufficient explanation for non-attendance and failure to instruct representation
  2. 2 Whether appeal should be reponed after deemed abandonment
  3. 3 Competency of appeal where sum sued for is less than £5000

Ratio Decidendi

Appellant failed to provide a sufficient and credible explanation for non-attendance and failure to instruct representation; medical evidence was inadequate and inspecific; procedural requirements were not met; appeal was deemed abandoned and reponing motion refused.

Court Disposition

Reponing motion refused; appeal remains abandoned.

Orders

  • Expenses of appeal awarded to respondent