CUNNINGHAM AGAINST (FIRST) ANTHONY ARTER, PENSIONS OMBUDSMAN; (SECOND) KAREN JOHNSTON, DEPUTY PENSIONS OMBUDSMAN; and (THIRD) NAMULAS PENSION TRUSTEES LTD [2019] ScotCS CSIH_48 (13 September 2019)

CUNNINGHAM AGAINST (FIRST) ANTHONY ARTER, PENSIONS OMBUDSMAN; (SECOND) KAREN JOHNSTON, DEPUTY PENSIONS OMBUDSMAN; and (THIRD) NAMULAS PENSION TRUSTEES LTD [2019] ScotCS CSIH_48 (13 September 2019)

The court exercised its discretion under RCS 2.1 to relieve the noter from the consequences of failing to comply with the 14-day time limit for appealing the Pensions Ombudsman determination, finding the cause to be excusable ignorance of the time limit and balancing the lack of prejudice to respondents against the significance of the case to the noter, subject to the condition that the noter pays respondents' judicial expenses.

Citation
[2019] ScotCS CSIH_48
Parties
Noter: Neil Cunningham; First Respondent: Anthony Arter; Second Respondent: Karen Johnston; Third Respondent: Namulas Pension Trustees Ltd
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
13 September 2019
Procedural Posture
Statutory Appeal (application for Relief From Procedural Failure) / Single Bill Hearing Before Procedural Judge
Outcome
application granted
Legal Topics
Statutory Appeals, Time Limits, Relief From Procedural Failure, Pensions Ombudsman Determinations
Pensions Civil Procedure Statutory Appeals Time Limits Relief From Procedural Failure Pensions Ombudsman Determinations

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 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Neil Cunningham

Noter

Anthony Arter

First Respondent

Karen Johnston

Second Respondent

Namulas Pension Trustees Ltd

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Statutory Appeal (application for Relief From Procedural Failure) / Single Bill Hearing Before Procedural Judge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should exercise its discretion under RCS 2.1 to relieve the noter from consequences of failing to comply with the 14-day time limit for appealing a Pensions Ombudsman determination
  2. 2 Whether the delay was caused by excusable mistake or oversight
  3. 3 Whether the questions raised disclose points of law suitable for appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The court exercised its discretion under RCS 2.1 to relieve the noter from the consequences of failing to comply with the 14-day time limit for appealing the Pensions Ombudsman determination, finding the cause to be excusable ignorance of the time limit and balancing the lack of prejudice to respondents against the significance of the case to the noter, subject to the condition that the noter pays respondents' judicial expenses.

Court Disposition

application granted

Orders

  • Noter relieved from consequences of failure to comply with 14-day time limit under RCS 2.1
  • Noter liable for judicial expenses to first, second, and third respondents