MITCHELL, APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY v HUGH COLIN SOMERVILLE AND ANOTHER [2017] ScotCS CSIH_60 (04 October 2017))
The application does not satisfy section 113 of the 2014 Act as the grounds are fact-specific, relate to judicial discretion and expenses, and do not raise an important point of principle or practice nor provide a compelling reason for appeal.
- Citation
- [2017] ScotCS CSIH_60
- Parties
- Applicant: Wesley Mitchell; Respondents: Hugh Colin Somerville & Another
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judgment Date
- 04 October 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Application for Leave to Appeal / Refusal of Leave to Appeal to Court of Session
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal refused.
- Legal Topics
- Reduction of Wills, Legal Aid, Summary Decree, Expenses Taxation
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Wesley Mitchell
Applicant
Hugh Colin Somerville & Another
Respondents
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Refusal of Leave to Appeal to Court of Session
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted under section 113 of the Courts Reform (Scotland) Act 2014
- 2 Whether the absence of legal aid and alleged procedural unfairness justify appeal
- 3 Whether the sheriff erred in granting summary decree and in taxation of expenses
Ratio Decidendi
The application does not satisfy section 113 of the 2014 Act as the grounds are fact-specific, relate to judicial discretion and expenses, and do not raise an important point of principle or practice nor provide a compelling reason for appeal.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal refused.
Orders
- Leave to appeal to Court of Session refused.
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