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 cause refuses the appeal and adheres to the sheriff's interlocutor dated 25 June 2002; finds the petitioners liable to the respondents in the expenses occasioned by the appeal and remits the account thereof when lodged to the auditor of court to tax and to report thereon.
[2] The respondents lodged answers to the petition. In these answers the respondents averred that the demand of 30 January 2002 was the "first correspondence" received by them from the petitioners. They went on to say that this demand:
"failed to provide a description of goods or services supplied, purchase order, number or date of supply."
They further averred that they were able to pay their debts as they fell due and in particular were able to pay a debt to the extent of �244.62. They averred that they disputed the debt.
[3] A hearing was assigned for 25 March 2002. On that date it would appear that the sheriff was informed that the debt had been paid and, although his Note does not specifically say so, that the petition could be dismissed. He was invited to rule on the question of expenses. The sheriff expressed a reluctance to do so. He reminded parties of the passage in the second edition of Macphail on Sheriff Court Practice, para 14.65 which is in the following terms:
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.