MacKenzie v. Ryan [2006] ScotSC 9 (15 February 2006)

MacKenzie v. Ryan [2006] ScotSC 9 (15 February 2006)

The court held that the circumstances did not meet the test for sanction for employment of counsel, as the matter was neither difficult nor complex, and the disparity in legal representation alone was insufficient justification.

Citation
[2006] ScotSC 9
Parties
Pursuer: Dereck Mackenzie; Defender: Mrs Aileen Ryan
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
15 February 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil / Motion for Sanction for Employment of Counsel Following Refusal of Defender's Motion for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
pursuer's motion for sanction for employment of counsel refused
Legal Topics
Interdict, Sanction for Employment of Counsel, Lease Termination, Interim Interdict, Costs/expenses
Civil Procedure Landlord and Tenant Interdict Sanction for Employment of Counsel Lease Termination Interim Interdict Costs/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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dereck Mackenzie

Pursuer

Mrs Aileen Ryan

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Motion for Sanction for Employment of Counsel Following Refusal of Defender's Motion for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether sanction for the employment of counsel should be granted to the pursuer for the hearing on 18 January 2006

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the circumstances did not meet the test for sanction for employment of counsel, as the matter was neither difficult nor complex, and the disparity in legal representation alone was insufficient justification.

Court Disposition

pursuer's motion for sanction for employment of counsel refused

Orders

  • pursuer's motion for sanction for employment of counsel is refused