Martens v James Aird & Sons [2010] ScotCS CSOH_126 (07 September 2010)
Exceptional circumstances justifying reduction of the decree were not established. Dr Martens was aware of the risk of decree by default and failed to take reasonable steps to avoid it or to monitor the progress of her case. There was no procedural flaw or miscarriage of justice.
- Citation
- [2010] ScotCS CSOH_126
- Parties
- Defender: Dr Martens; Pursuer: James Aird & Sons
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judgment Date
- 07 September 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Civil / Motion for Reduction of Decree in Foro
- Outcome
- Application for reduction refused; absolvitor granted to defenders.
- Legal Topics
- Reduction of Decree, Default Judgment, Exceptional Circumstances, Miscarriage of Justice
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Dr Martens
Defender
James Aird & Sons
Pursuer
Procedural Posture
Civil / Motion for Reduction of Decree in Foro
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether exceptional circumstances exist to justify reduction of a decree in foro granted by default against Dr Martens
- 2 Whether there was a miscarriage of justice in the procedure leading to decree by default
Ratio Decidendi
Exceptional circumstances justifying reduction of the decree were not established. Dr Martens was aware of the risk of decree by default and failed to take reasonable steps to avoid it or to monitor the progress of her case. There was no procedural flaw or miscarriage of justice.
Court Disposition
Application for reduction refused; absolvitor granted to defenders.
Orders
- Defenders' third and fourth pleas-in-law sustained
- Absolvitor granted in favour of defenders
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment