Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
The sheriff principal, having resumed consideration of the appeal, Answers questions 1, 2, 4 and 7 in the stated case in the negative; Answers the remaining questions 3, 5 and 6 in the affirmative; Allows the appeal in respect of grounds 1 to 3; Refuses same quoad ground 4; accordingly, Remits the case to the procedural sheriff to determine further procedure.
[1] This appeal largely involves consideration as to the nature and effect of rule 3.48 in the Act of Sederunt (Child Care & Maintenance Rules) 1997. That rule is in the following terms:
“The sheriff may at any time, on the application of any party or of his own motion, allow amendment of any statement supporting the conditions of the grounds for referral.”
[2] In the present instance, as he records at page 27, paragraph [14] in the stated case, the sheriff was invited to make amendments to render the statement of facts consistent with the evidence he had heard. The sheriff acknowledges that he was not invited by any party “to make in terms those amendments” which he did, in fact, make.
[3] In the bundle of papers prepared on behalf of the appellant (for the purposes of the appeal) the grounds for referral and associated statement of facts as originally framed by the reporter are to be found at tab 1 whereas the statement of facts following amendments allowed by the sheriff appears at tab 2. At a glance, paragraphs 9 and 10 within the statement of facts appear to have been considerably expanded upon.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.