MacKenzie v. Grant+ & Anor [2007] ScotSC 11 (13 March 2007)

An uplift of fees is justified only in respect of the importance of the subject matter to the pursuer, not for complexity, novelty, or settlement efforts. The solicitor's special responsibility arose from the anxiety and importance attached by the client to the subject matter (her home), not from legal or factual complexity.

Citation: [2007] ScotSC 11
Parties: Pursuer: Mrs Jessie MacKenzie Grant; Defender: Robert Grant; Defender: Mrs Mhairi Grant
Jurisdiction: Scotland
Judgment Date: 13 March 2007
Procedural Posture: Civil / Post Judgment Motion for Additional Fee
Outcome: Motion granted in part.
Legal Topics: Expenses, Additional Fee, Land Registration, Boundary Dispute

Civil Procedure Property Law Expenses Additional Fee Land Registration Boundary Dispute

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1

Parties

Mrs Jessie MacKenzie Grant

Pursuer

Robert Grant

Defender

Mrs Mhairi Grant

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Post Judgment Motion for Additional Fee

Legal Issues

1 Whether a percentage increase (additional fee) should be allowed on the pursuer's expenses under the Act of Sederunt (Fees of Solicitors in the Sheriff Court) (Amendment and Further Provisions) 1993, as amended, based on complexity, importance, and settlement efforts.

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Motion granted in part.

Orders

A percentage increase of ten per cent in the fees authorised by the Table of Fees in respect of the expenses awarded to the pursuer.
Expenses of the motion likely to be awarded in favour of the pursuer, subject to further submissions.