Anderson v Shetland Islands Council & Anor [2011] ScotCS CSOH_187 (15 November 2011)

Anderson v Shetland Islands Council & Anor [2011] ScotCS CSOH_187 (15 November 2011)

Mr Anderson, although controlling and directing the litigation under power of attorney, did not have the requisite interest in the subject matter to be dominus litis; thus, it is not competent to find him personally liable for expenses. The defenders are entitled to expenses as they were wholly successful in their motions and opposition.

Citation
[2011] ScotCS CSOH_187
Parties
Pursuer: Mrs Patricia Anderson; First Defender: Shetland Islands Council; Second Defender: Scottish Water; Attorney for Pursuer: Mr R. A. Anderson
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
15 November 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil / Motion Roll Hearing and Expenses Determination
Outcome
Defenders' motions for expenses granted; Mr Anderson not found personally liable for expenses.
Legal Topics
Dominus Litis, Personal Liability for Expenses, Power of Attorney, Legal Aid, Professional Conduct
Civil Procedure Property Law Dominus Litis Personal Liability for Expenses Power of Attorney Legal Aid Professional Conduct

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs Patricia Anderson

Pursuer

Shetland Islands Council

First Defender

Scottish Water

Second Defender

Mr R. A. Anderson

Attorney for Pursuer

Procedural Posture

Civil / Motion Roll Hearing and Expenses Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Anderson, acting under power of attorney, should be found personally liable for expenses as dominus litis
  2. 2 Whether the defenders are entitled to expenses for motions heard on 30 September 2011

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Anderson, although controlling and directing the litigation under power of attorney, did not have the requisite interest in the subject matter to be dominus litis; thus, it is not competent to find him personally liable for expenses. The defenders are entitled to expenses as they were wholly successful in their motions and opposition.

Court Disposition

Defenders' motions for expenses granted; Mr Anderson not found personally liable for expenses.

Orders

  • First defenders entitled to expenses in respect of all three motions heard on 30 September 2011.
  • Second defenders entitled to expenses in respect of the pursuer's two motions heard on 30 September 2011.