A B v. C D [1911] ScotLR 76 (17 November 1911)

A B v. C D [1911] ScotLR 76 (17 November 1911)

A second reclaiming note is not incompetent under section 52, but its necessity and the allowance of expenses are matters for the Auditor; if no proper reason exists for lodging the second note, expenses will be disallowed even if the party is successful.

Citation
[1911] ScotLR 76
Parties
Pursuer: A B; Defender: C D
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
17 November 1911
Procedural Posture
Action of Damages for Slander / Reclaiming Note; Interlocutor Review
Outcome
Case sent to the Summar Roll; second reclaiming note allowed to proceed.
Legal Topics
Reclaiming Notes, Competency, Expenses, Court of Session Act 1868 Sec. 52
Civil Procedure Defamation Reclaiming Notes Competency Expenses Court of Session Act 1868 Sec. 52

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

A B

Pursuer

C D

Defender

Procedural Posture

Action of Damages for Slander / Reclaiming Note; Interlocutor Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a second reclaiming note is competent and necessary when the first has already been lodged and sent to the roll
  2. 2 Whether expenses for a second reclaiming note should be allowed

Ratio Decidendi

A second reclaiming note is not incompetent under section 52, but its necessity and the allowance of expenses are matters for the Auditor; if no proper reason exists for lodging the second note, expenses will be disallowed even if the party is successful.

Court Disposition

Case sent to the Summar Roll; second reclaiming note allowed to proceed.

Orders

  • Auditor to determine propriety and expenses of second reclaiming note