OPINION OF THE COURT DELIVERED BY LORD BRODIE IN THE RECLAIMING MOTION BY TODS MURRAY, W.S. AGAINST ARAKIN Ltd (ANDREW MCNAMARA, ASSIGNEE) [2014] ScotCS CSIH_67 (16 July 2014)

OPINION OF THE COURT DELIVERED BY LORD BRODIE IN THE RECLAIMING MOTION BY TODS MURRAY, W.S. AGAINST ARAKIN Ltd (ANDREW MCNAMARA, ASSIGNEE) [2014] ScotCS CSIH_67 (16 July 2014)

The Lord Ordinary's interlocutor of 29 July 2013 was correctly decided; the defender's grounds of appeal were without merit, repetitive of previously rejected arguments, and did not demonstrate any error in the Lord Ordinary's exercise of discretion regarding interest, expenses, additional fees, or the uplift of consigned funds. The defender's counterclaims and allegations had already been dismissed as irrelevant and lacking specification.

Citation
[2014] ScotCS CSIH_67
Parties
Pursuer: Tods Murray WS; Defender: Arakin Limited (Andrew McNamara, Assignee)
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
16 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil / Reclaiming Motion (appeal) Against Interlocutor of 29 July 2013
Outcome
Reclaiming motion refused; Lord Ordinary's interlocutor adhered to.
Legal Topics
Solicitors' Fees, Expenses of Process, Interest on Judgment, Uplift of Consigned Funds, Certification of Skilled Witness
Civil Procedure Contract Law Solicitors' Fees Expenses of Process Interest on Judgment Uplift of Consigned Funds Certification of Skilled Witness

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tods Murray WS

Pursuer

Arakin Limited (Andrew McNamara, Assignee)

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Reclaiming Motion (appeal) Against Interlocutor of 29 July 2013

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Lord Ordinary erred in awarding interest, expenses, and additional fees to the pursuers; whether the defender's counterclaims and grounds of appeal had merit; whether the Lord Ordinary properly exercised discretion in awarding expenses and authorising uplift of consigned funds.

Ratio Decidendi

The Lord Ordinary's interlocutor of 29 July 2013 was correctly decided; the defender's grounds of appeal were without merit, repetitive of previously rejected arguments, and did not demonstrate any error in the Lord Ordinary's exercise of discretion regarding interest, expenses, additional fees, or the uplift of consigned funds. The defender's counterclaims and allegations had already been dismissed as irrelevant and lacking specification.

Court Disposition

Reclaiming motion refused; Lord Ordinary's interlocutor adhered to.

Orders

  • Refusal of defender's reclaiming motion.
  • Adherence to Lord Ordinary's interlocutor of 29 July 2013.