Martin & Co (UK) Ltd v Stenhouse & Anor [2015] ScotCS CSIH_86 (01 December 2015)

Martin & Co (UK) Ltd v Stenhouse & Anor [2015] ScotCS CSIH_86 (01 December 2015)

The Lord Ordinary erred by dismissing the contempt proceedings without hearing evidence on disputed facts; allegations of defiant and obstructive behaviour towards a court-appointed commissioner are sufficiently serious to warrant proof; proportionality does not justify discontinuance at this stage; public interest in upholding court authority outweighs private interests and resource concerns.

Citation
[2015] ScotCS CSIH_86
Parties
Petitioner, Minuter, Reclaimer: Martin & Co (UK) Limited; Respondent: Kenneth Stenhouse; Respondent: Graham Main
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
01 December 2015
Procedural Posture
Reclaiming Motion in Minute and Answer Proceedings Arising From Petition / Appeal From Dismissal of Minute Alleging Contempt of Court
Outcome
Reclaiming motion allowed; interlocutors recalled; minute and answers remitted to different Outer House judge for proof.
Legal Topics
Commission and Diligence, Proportionality in Contempt Proceedings, Authority of the Court
Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Commission and Diligence Proportionality in Contempt Proceedings Authority of the 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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Martin & Co (UK) Limited

Petitioner, Minuter, Reclaimer

Kenneth Stenhouse

Respondent

Graham Main

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Reclaiming Motion in Minute and Answer Proceedings Arising From Petition / Appeal From Dismissal of Minute Alleging Contempt of Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Lord Ordinary erred in dismissing contempt proceedings without proof
  2. 2 Whether disputed facts regarding alleged contempt require evidentiary hearing
  3. 3 Whether proportionality justifies discontinuing contempt proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The Lord Ordinary erred by dismissing the contempt proceedings without hearing evidence on disputed facts; allegations of defiant and obstructive behaviour towards a court-appointed commissioner are sufficiently serious to warrant proof; proportionality does not justify discontinuance at this stage; public interest in upholding court authority outweighs private interests and resource concerns.

Court Disposition

Reclaiming motion allowed; interlocutors recalled; minute and answers remitted to different Outer House judge for proof.

Orders

  • Recall interlocutors of Lord Ordinary dated 21 February 2014 and 20 October 2014.
  • Remit minute and answers to a different Outer House judge to proceed as accords.