SOUTH LANARKSHIRE COUNCIL v. MARTIN DOYLE [2011] ScotSC 137 (24 August 2011)

SOUTH LANARKSHIRE COUNCIL v. MARTIN DOYLE [2011] ScotSC 137 (24 August 2011)

The Sheriff was entitled, on the material and submissions before him, to find a prima facie case of anti-social behaviour by the appellant and to conclude that an interim order was necessary for the protection of relevant persons. The Sheriff properly considered both parties' submissions and the procedural history, and there was no basis to interfere with the exercise of discretion.

Citation
[2011] ScotSC 137
Parties
Pursuer and Respondent: South Lanarkshire Council; Defender and Appellant: Martin John Doyle
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
24 August 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Interim Anti Social Behaviour Order
Outcome
appeal refused
Legal Topics
Anti Social Behaviour Orders, Interim Relief, Judicial Discretion, Appeal Procedure
Civil Procedure Housing Law Public Order Anti Social Behaviour Orders Interim Relief Judicial Discretion Appeal 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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

South Lanarkshire Council

Pursuer and Respondent

Martin John Doyle

Defender and Appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Interim Anti Social Behaviour Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Sheriff erred in granting an interim anti-social behaviour order against the appellant
  2. 2 Whether the Sheriff properly considered all relevant evidence and submissions, including those of the appellant
  3. 3 Whether the statutory test for necessity and prima facie case was met

Ratio Decidendi

The Sheriff was entitled, on the material and submissions before him, to find a prima facie case of anti-social behaviour by the appellant and to conclude that an interim order was necessary for the protection of relevant persons. The Sheriff properly considered both parties' submissions and the procedural history, and there was no basis to interfere with the exercise of discretion.

Court Disposition

appeal refused

Orders

  • appeal refused and Sheriff's interlocutor of 15 June 2011 adhered to
  • defender and appellant found liable in expenses of the appeal