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 proof began on 7 April 2009 and proceeded over four separate days concluding on 1 September 2009. At the commencement of the proof the defender and now appellant was ordained to lead at proof. The appellant was ordained to lead as he did not dispute that the pursuers had provided professional services to him however the issue related to the standard of those professional services and those of senior counsel instructed by the pursuers to provide an opinion.
The sheriff issued his judgment on 22 September 2009. I do not propose to go into detail with regard to the merits of the action as the nature of the dispute and background is set out fully in the sheriff's judgment. Suffice to say that the appellant consulted the pursuers on Scottish Feudal Baronial Law and a pending petition to the Lord Lyon for matriculation of arms
At the outset the appellant indicated that he had two preliminary points to make before proceeding to his grounds of appeal.
Firstly, he wished to ascertain his right to appeal further to the Court of Session. I indicated that it was premature to discuss future potential appeal issues before the appeal by stated case from the decision of the sheriff had been heard and decided upon.
The second preliminary point related to the sheriff's failure to draft a stated case as required by the summary cause rules within 28 days of the lodging of the note of appeal. The appropriate rule of court is Summary Cause Rule 25.1(3):-
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.