M'Coll v. Beresford's Trustees [1920] ScotLR 321 (09 March 1920)

M'Coll v. Beresford's Trustees [1920] ScotLR 321 (09 March 1920)

The Land Court ought to have considered and decided the motion for re-hearing on its merits, notwithstanding the existence of an unwithdrawn requisition for a Special Case. The rules do not render such a motion incompetent, and the Land Court is not functus officio in these circumstances.

Citation
[1920] ScotLR 321
Parties
Appellant: John M'Coll; Respondents: F. C. Beresford and others, trustees of Sir George de la Poer Beresford
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
09 March 1920
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Scottish Land Court (special Case) / Inner House, First Division, Court of Session
Outcome
Appeal allowed; question of law answered in the negative.
Legal Topics
Small Holding, Competency of Motion for Rehearing, Small Landholders (scotland) Act 1911, Rules of Scottish Land Court
Landlord and Tenant Civil Procedure Small Holding Competency of Motion for Rehearing Small Landholders (scotland) Act 1911 Rules of Scottish Land Court

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John M'Coll

Appellant

F. C. Beresford and others, trustees of Sir George de la Poer Beresford

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Scottish Land Court (special Case) / Inner House, First Division, Court of Session

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is a motion for re-hearing competent when a requisition for a Special Case has been lodged?
  2. 2 Did the Land Court err in refusing to grant a re-hearing as incompetent?

Ratio Decidendi

The Land Court ought to have considered and decided the motion for re-hearing on its merits, notwithstanding the existence of an unwithdrawn requisition for a Special Case. The rules do not render such a motion incompetent, and the Land Court is not functus officio in these circumstances.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; question of law answered in the negative.

Orders

  • The Land Court must consider the motion for re-hearing on its merits.
  • The second question of law is answered in the negative.