JEREMIAH GERARD O'SULLIVAN v. JASMINE MARGARET HELEN SLATER OR O'SULLIVAN [2001] ScotSC 11 (18th April, 2001)

JEREMIAH GERARD O'SULLIVAN v. JASMINE MARGARET HELEN SLATER OR O'SULLIVAN [2001] ScotSC 11 (18th April, 2001)

It was wrong to grant commission and diligence for recovery of documents whose sole purpose was to test the credibility of the pursuer after his evidence had closed, as such documents could not be put to him and would not assist in resolving the substantive issues.

Citation
[2001] ScotSC 11
Parties
Pursuer and Appellant: Jeremiah Gerard O'Sullivan; Defender and Respondent: Jasmine Margaret Helen Slater or O'Sullivan
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Procedural Posture
Divorce Action / Appeal Against Interlocutor Granting Commission and Diligence for Recovery of Documents
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Divorce, Commission and Diligence, Credibility of Witnesses, Recovery of Documents, Expenses
Family Law Civil Procedure Divorce Commission and Diligence Credibility of Witnesses Recovery of Documents Expenses

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jeremiah Gerard O'Sullivan

Pursuer and Appellant

Jasmine Margaret Helen Slater or O'Sullivan

Defender and Respondent

Procedural Posture

Divorce Action / Appeal Against Interlocutor Granting Commission and Diligence for Recovery of Documents

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether commission and diligence can be granted during proof solely to recover documents for the purpose of discrediting a witness whose evidence is complete
  2. 2 Whether the sheriff erred in exercising discretion to allow recovery of documents at this stage

Ratio Decidendi

It was wrong to grant commission and diligence for recovery of documents whose sole purpose was to test the credibility of the pursuer after his evidence had closed, as such documents could not be put to him and would not assist in resolving the substantive issues.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • interlocutor of the sheriff dated 28 November 2000 recalled
  • defender and respondent found liable as an assisted person to the pursuer and appellant in the expenses of the appeal