Bell & Anor v McMillan & Anor [2000] ScotCS 332 (22 December 2000)

Bell & Anor v McMillan & Anor [2000] ScotCS 332 (22 December 2000)

The sheriff was justified in ordering caution as the appellant's pleadings disclosed no stateable case, the actions were not personal in nature, the appellant was an undischarged bankrupt with a history of unpaid expenses, and the orders for caution did not infringe his Article 6 rights. The appeals were therefore...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2000] ScotCS 332
Parties
Appellant: James Bell; Respondent: Wm. A. McMillan; Respondent: D. B. Jackson; Respondent: T. S. Bryson
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
22 December 2000
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Sheriff Court Decisions to the Inner House, Court of Session
Outcome
Appeals refused
Legal Topics
Caution for Expenses, Sequestration, Personal Actions, Judicial Discretion, Article 6 ECHR
Civil Procedure Bankruptcy Trusts and Estates Caution for Expenses Sequestration Personal Actions Judicial Discretion Article 6 ECHR

Source-derived case record

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Bell

Appellant

Wm. A. McMillan

Respondent

D. B. Jackson

Respondent

T. S. Bryson

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Sheriff Court Decisions to the Inner House, Court of Session

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sheriff erred in ordering the appellant to find caution for expenses
  2. 2 Whether the actions raised by the appellant disclosed a stateable case for reparation or personal wrong
  3. 3 Whether the orders for caution infringed Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights

Ratio Decidendi

The sheriff was justified in ordering caution as the appellant's pleadings disclosed no stateable case, the actions were not personal in nature, the appellant was an undischarged bankrupt with a history of unpaid expenses, and the orders for caution did not infringe his Article 6 rights. The appeals were therefore refused.

Court Disposition

Appeals refused

Orders

  • Both appeals refused
  • Decrees of absolvitor and orders for caution affirmed