LORRAINE WALKER OR PARK v. ANDREW PARK and MARTIN A VALENTE

The Sheriff Principal having resumed consideration of the appeal Refuses same; Adheres to the Sheriff's interlocutor of 8 December 1998 complained of; Sanctions the appeal as suitable for the employment of a solicitor-advocate; Appoints parties to be heard on the expenses of the appeal on Monday 22 March 1999 at 10.30 am.

The Sheriff, on joint motion, Discharges the diet of Proof fixed for today,/; having heard 3rd Parties motion for Decree of Absolvitor in favour of 3rd Party Grants same; Reserves question of expenses quoad 3rd Party; Continues the cause to the Diet Roll of 17 December 1998 at 10 am for a 3 day Proof to be assigned.

It follows from the foregoing that the present appeal is itself incompetent, leave for it not having been obtained, and so falls to be refused.

As to expenses the agent for the pursuer sought a hearing thereon in the event of the appeal being unsuccessful and I have assigned a diet for such a hearing. It was suggested that varying considerations might arise affecting this matter depending on the grounds of a decision to refuse the appeal.

A motion was made on behalf of the third party for sanction of the appeal as suitable for the employment of a solicitor-advocate. I consider the questions of competency raised to be of sufficient complexity to justify the granting of this motion and in addition it seems to me reasonable to do so having regard to the fact that the same solicitor-advocate was the legal representative who appeared on behalf of the third party at the proof diet on 8 December 1998 out of which the appeal arose.