Cairns v. Strathclyde Police [2004] ScotSC 25 (02 April 2004)

Cairns v. Strathclyde Police [2004] ScotSC 25 (02 April 2004)

The sheriff was entitled to order caution for expenses against the pursuer, an undischarged bankrupt, as there were no exceptional circumstances to depart from the normal rule. The pursuer's pleadings were hopelessly irrelevant and disclosed no relevant cause of action. The order for caution did not contravene Article 6(1) ECHR as it was a proportionate response to a plainly hopeless claim and did not impair the essence of the right of access to court.

Citation
[2004] ScotSC 25
Parties
Pursuer and Appellant: Edward Edelsten Cairns; Defender and Respondent: The Chief Constable, Strathclyde Police
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
02 April 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Interlocutors Ordering Caution for Expenses and Granting Decree of Absolvitor
Outcome
appeal refused; interlocutors adhered to
Legal Topics
Caution for Expenses, Right of Access to Court, Bankruptcy and Litigation, Irrelevant Pleadings
Civil Procedure Human Rights Law Caution for Expenses Right of Access to Court Bankruptcy and Litigation Irrelevant Pleadings

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Edward Edelsten Cairns

Pursuer and Appellant

The Chief Constable, Strathclyde Police

Defender and Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Interlocutors Ordering Caution for Expenses and Granting Decree of Absolvitor

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sheriff erred in ordering caution for expenses against an undischarged bankrupt pursuer
  2. 2 Whether the pursuer's pleadings disclosed a relevant cause of action
  3. 3 Whether the order for caution contravened Article 6(1) ECHR (right of access to court)

Ratio Decidendi

The sheriff was entitled to order caution for expenses against the pursuer, an undischarged bankrupt, as there were no exceptional circumstances to depart from the normal rule. The pursuer's pleadings were hopelessly irrelevant and disclosed no relevant cause of action. The order for caution did not contravene Article 6(1) ECHR as it was a proportionate response to a plainly hopeless claim and did not impair the essence of the right of access to court.

Court Disposition

appeal refused; interlocutors adhered to

Orders

  • Pursuer and appellant found liable to defender and respondent in expenses of the appeal
  • Remit to auditor of court to tax expenses and report