Gibson v. M'Kean [1900] ScotLR 37_815 (21 June 1900)

A reclaiming-note is incompetent if the interlocutor prefixed contains material errors or omissions, as statutory requirements are peremptory and must be strictly complied with.

Citation: [1900] ScotLR 37_815
Parties: Pursuer: Mrs Jane Helen Gibson; Pursuer: Robert James Gibson; Defender: James Calder M'Kean; Defender: John Robert Weddell
Jurisdiction: Scotland
Judgment Date: 21 June 1900
Procedural Posture: Civil / Reclaiming Note (appeal)
Outcome: reclaiming-note dismissed as incompetent
Legal Topics: Competency of Reclaiming Note, Material Error in Interlocutor, Court of Session Act 1825 Section 18

Civil Procedure Competency of Reclaiming Note Material Error in Interlocutor Court of Session Act 1825 Section 18

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

Parties

Mrs Jane Helen Gibson

Pursuer

Robert James Gibson

Pursuer

James Calder M'Kean

Defender

John Robert Weddell

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Reclaiming Note (appeal)

Legal Issues

1 Whether a reclaiming-note is competent when the interlocutor prefixed contains material errors
2 Whether amendment of the interlocutor prefixed to the reclaiming-note is permissible under Court of Session Act 1825 section 18

Ratio Decidendi

A reclaiming-note is incompetent if the interlocutor prefixed contains material errors or omissions, as statutory requirements are peremptory and must be strictly complied with.

Court Disposition

reclaiming-note dismissed as incompetent

Orders

motion to amend refused
reclaiming-note dismissed