Chapman v. Money Wise (Scotland) Ltd [2002] ScotSC 210 (05 December 2002)

Chapman v. Money Wise (Scotland) Ltd [2002] ScotSC 210 (05 December 2002)

The defenders failed to comply with the interlocutor requiring production of full and proper accounts of intromissions, and the documents lodged were inadequate and unintelligible. The sheriff was entitled to treat the defenders as in default and to grant decree by default for the sums craved. The sheriff exercised his discretion properly in refusing further time, given the defenders' persistent non-compliance and the need for effective sanctions to ensure compliance with court orders.

Citation
[2002] ScotSC 210
Parties
Pursuer and Respondent: James Chapman; Defenders and Appellants: Money Wise (Scotland) Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
05 December 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Decree by Default in Sheriff Court
Outcome
Appeal refused; decree by default adhered to.
Legal Topics
Accounting for Intromissions, Default Judgment, Compliance With Court Orders, Sale of Business, Commission Payments
Contract Law Civil Procedure Accounting for Intromissions Default Judgment Compliance With Court Orders Sale of Business Commission Payments

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Chapman

Pursuer and Respondent

Money Wise (Scotland) Limited

Defenders and Appellants

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Decree by Default in Sheriff Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defenders failed to comply with a court order to produce full accounts of intromissions as required by the agreement and interlocutor.
  2. 2 Whether it was competent and appropriate for the sheriff to grant decree by default for the sums craved in the absence of proper accounts.
  3. 3 Whether the sheriff erred in the exercise of discretion by refusing further time for compliance.

Ratio Decidendi

The defenders failed to comply with the interlocutor requiring production of full and proper accounts of intromissions, and the documents lodged were inadequate and unintelligible. The sheriff was entitled to treat the defenders as in default and to grant decree by default for the sums craved. The sheriff exercised his discretion properly in refusing further time, given the defenders' persistent non-compliance and the need for effective sanctions to ensure compliance with court orders.

Court Disposition

Appeal refused; decree by default adhered to.

Orders

  • Refuses the appeal and adheres to the interlocutor of the sheriff dated 19 September 2002.
  • Refuses the defenders' motion to amend.