Smith v. Scottish Ministers & Ors [2004] ScotCS 243 (08 November 2004)

Smith v. Scottish Ministers & Ors [2004] ScotCS 243 (08 November 2004)

The appeal was dismissed for want of insistence because the appellant was neither present nor represented, had been given ample opportunity to arrange representation, and there was no assurance that he could proceed at any future hearing.

Citation
[2004] ScotCS 243
Parties
Appellant: William Smith; First Respondents: Scottish Ministers; Second Respondents: City of Glasgow Council; Third Respondents: Scottish Enterprise; Fourth Respondents: Peel Holdings PLC; Fifth Respondents: Clydeport Operators Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
08 November 2004
Procedural Posture
Statutory Appeal / Appeal to Court of Session Under Schedule 2, Paragraph 2, Roads (scotland) Act 1984
Outcome
Appeal dismissed for want of insistence
Legal Topics
Standing (title to Sue), Statutory Appeals, Procedural Dismissal
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Standing (title to Sue) Statutory Appeals Procedural Dismissal

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

Parties

William Smith

Appellant

Scottish Ministers

First Respondents

City of Glasgow Council

Second Respondents

Scottish Enterprise

Third Respondents

Peel Holdings PLC

Fourth Respondents

Clydeport Operators Limited

Fifth Respondents

Procedural Posture

Statutory Appeal / Appeal to Court of Session Under Schedule 2, Paragraph 2, Roads (scotland) Act 1984

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant is a 'person aggrieved' with title to sue under the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984
  2. 2 Whether the appeal should be dismissed for want of insistence due to lack of representation and non-appearance

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed for want of insistence because the appellant was neither present nor represented, had been given ample opportunity to arrange representation, and there was no assurance that he could proceed at any future hearing.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed for want of insistence

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed for want of insistence