Scottish Professional Football League Ltd v Lisini Pub Management Co Ltd [2014] ScotCS CSIH_6 (15 January 2014)

Scottish Professional Football League Ltd v Lisini Pub Management Co Ltd [2014] ScotCS CSIH_6 (15 January 2014)

Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was refused because there is an authoritative ECJ ruling on the issue, no new issue of general public importance is raised, the case has not reached proof, facts are disputed, pleadings are to be amended, and further delay would be prejudicial.

Citation
[2014] ScotCS CSIH_6
Parties
Pursuer and Reclaimer: Scottish Professional Football League Limited; Defender and Respondent: Lisini Pub Management Co Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
15 January 2014
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Post Reclaiming Motion, Leave to Appeal to Supreme Court
Outcome
application for leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Appeal Procedure, ECJ Reference, Delay in Proceedings
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Appeal Procedure ECJ Reference Delay in Proceedings

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Scottish Professional Football League Limited

Pursuer and Reclaimer

Lisini Pub Management Co Limited

Defender and Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal / Post Reclaiming Motion, Leave to Appeal to Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal to the Supreme Court should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the case raises a new issue of general public importance
  3. 3 Whether the stage of proceedings is appropriate for appeal

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was refused because there is an authoritative ECJ ruling on the issue, no new issue of general public importance is raised, the case has not reached proof, facts are disputed, pleadings are to be amended, and further delay would be prejudicial.

Court Disposition

application for leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court refused