Professional briefing - The Journal Online

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Professional briefing Civil court Party confidential An action of damages not subject to time bar, and the principles that apply when a party seeks to keep their address confidential, are among the more unusual matters considered by Sheriff Lindsay Foulis in this month’s civil court roundup Citation In Chief Constable, Northern Constabulary v A 2010 GWD 19-373 an interim sexual offences prevention order and the summary application in terms of which the interim order was granted were delivered to the defender by police officers. There was no authority for such service. Sheriff Principal Young determined that the purported citation was irregular. Citation required to be by post or officer of the court. Police officers were not officers of court. Regular citation required not only delivery of a copy of the writ upon a party but also the delivery of various forms. The order was granted in absence and the defender appealed. The issue then was whether the defender appearing at the appeal cured the defect. The sheriff principal, after considering authority, concluded that the critical question was what is meant by “appear” and “appearance” in rule 2.17(1) of the summary applications rules, and the corresponding provisions for ordinary cause, summary cause and small claims. He did not consider that the taking of an appeal prevented arguing irregularity of citation. Appearance by a defender meant the lodging by him of a notice of intention to defend, or in the context of a summary application, appearing or being represented at the initial hearing. He was however inclined to the view that lodging an application for a time to pay direction could constitute appearance. The object of all citation was to bring to the knowledge of the defender the proceedings which were impending against him in order that he might have time and opportunity to take the necessary steps to protect his interests. If the defender took the opportunity to take one of the steps which the citation was designed to afford him, he ought not thereafter to be entitled to plead an irregularity in the citation. Delay In Rennie v Lothian Health Board [2010] CSOH 61; 2010 GWD 17-328 an action had been raised for damages for medical negligence arising from the birth of a child in 1980. The action was raised in 2006. The child was and would always be incapax. The defenders took a plea of mora and also sought that the action be struck at on the basis of unreasonable delay. In considering the plea of mora Lady Clark acknowledged that account The sheriff principal did not consider that the taking of an appeal prevented arguing irregularity of citation www.lawscotjobs.co.uk could be taken of events both before and after the action was raised. She further observed from authority that mere lapse of time will not found an effective plea of mora. The remedy provided by the law for delay lay in the various prescriptions and limitations. However, if in addition to the lapse of time, there have been actings or conduct fitted to mislead, or to alter the position of the other party to their detriment, the plea of mora may be sustained. But for such a plea to receive effect, her Ladyship considered that there must have been excessive or unreasonable delay in asserting a known right, coupled with a material alteration of circumstances, to the detriment of the other party. It did not arise in the present litigation. If such a plea was upheld, decree of absolvitor was the appropriate disposal. Turning to the Tonner v Reiach and Hall point, focus required to be applied to the period since the raising of the action. Her Ladyship considered that the issues involved were complex. The pursuer, a curator bonis appointed in 2001, required to explore and advance the claim, with the inevitable restrictions and delays involved with legal aid. There was substantial adjustment by both parties. There were at least five consultations with five different experts on behalf of the pursuer. This was not unusual and often in the course of this work the case was clarified and developed. It had resulted in the averments of fault Continued overleaf > Don’t miss these essential briefings Civil Court: Round-up 39 Licensing: More Gill troubles 42 Environment: Listed Buildings 43 Insolvency: Wrongful trading 44 Family: Child support 45 Charities: Private bills 46 Discipline Tribunal 47 Websites: Trust management 48 Book review: Adult Protection 49 July 2010 theJournal / 39
Professional briefing Civil court Continued from page 39 > which now formed the only basis of the present action being focused in October 2009. Her Ladyship did not consider this unusual in the context of a complex case made more difficult because of the passage of time. The difficulties faced by the pursuer included some for which the defenders were responsible, such as problems with medical notes and the failure of the midwife employee to write her notes in a form which enabled her to be identified. That had caused difficulties for the pursuer as well as the defenders. If there had been substantial and unreasonable delay since the raising of the action, the post-litigation delay would have been judged more severely. Her Ladyship considered that there had been nothing in the delay since this action was raised which could be considered “inordinate”. Even if there was, in the context of the development of this complex case with the constraints of legal aid, it was excusable. Designation of party In AWB v JP 2010 GWD 19-371 Sheriff Ian Miller was required to consider when a party could avoid disclosing their present address to the other party. Sheriff Miller first considered the averments the defender founded on to justify non-disclosure. These included bare allegations of physical and verbal abuse and of having to act in self defence against violent conduct, a charge of assault in 2002 that resulted in a verdict of not guilty, and an allegation of assault in February 2006. The most recent incident related to verbal abuse in December 2006. In addition she averred that the pursuer had been abusive to her mother and her new partner prior to that last date. The pursuer denied all of these averments. After a review of authorities Sheriff Miller considered that a number of principles applied: 1. The general rule is that the present address of a party to an ordinary cause action must be disclosed. 2. Should a party change address while such an action is in dependence, that party is under an obligation to inform the court. 3. If that party does not wish to disclose their present address, they must set out why in their pleadings. 4. The reasons to support that departure from the general rule must be stated fully. An averment that one 40 / theJournal July 2010 party was not residing with the other is insufficient to justify nondisclosure. 5. In deciding whether to allow a party to preserve the requested anonymity, the court exercises a discretion. 6. The discretion is wide. It can extend to denying to the party who wishes to maintain their anonymity of residence the right to proceed with the action, at least until the issue of disclosure has been addressed to the satisfaction of the court. It could involve requiring disclosure in a way that inevitably brought the address to the knowledge of the other parties to the action. 7. The discretion has to be exercised on the basis of the information supplied to the court at the hearing when the issue is being debated. 8. The discretion can involve whether to allow the party to disclose the address to the court alone. Sheriff Miller then considered that the general rule applied to all actions, both family and other ordinary actions. The obligation to disclose or explain fully why there should be no disclosure rested on the party seeking non-disclosure. Here the averments were of some antiquity, predating the raising of the action in 2007. Sheriff Miller concluded that there should be disclosure. He then considered whether such disclosure should be restricted to the court. This would always depend on the facts and circumstances of the individual case in ascertaining what was in the interests of justice. The requirement to disclose attached to the action as such and not just to the hearing on which the court was currently engaged. If a party wished to restrict disclosure, reasons must be adduced in support of that restriction that satisfied the court as to its justification on the facts and having due regard to the proper interests of the administration of justice. This the defender had not done. Decree by default In Battenberg v The Firm of Dunfallandy House [2010] CSIH 41; 2010 GWD 19- 370 the Inner House, in considering whether to allow an appeal against a decree by default, observed that a judge granting decree may well be unaware of the reasons for the nonappearance of the party in default and those reasons may make that nonappearance wholly excusable. In principle, therefore, the decision whether to recall a decree by default Courts should always be informed of address changes If a party wished to restrict disclosure, reasons must be adduced in support of that restriction that satisfied the court as to its justification should not be confined to the question whether, on the information available to it, the first instance court granting that decree had exercised its discretion reasonably but also information that is available to the appellate court. By contrast, in Scottish Ministers v Smith [2010] CSIH 44; 2010 GWD 20- 387 the Second Division refused an appeal through want of insistence when the appellant failed to appear. A medical certificate was produced which predated the hearing. The certificate stated that the appellant was medically unfit to attend court of the day of the appeal. Their Lordships observed that whilst the certificate was not on soul and conscience this was no longer essential. However, the certificate failed to specify the appellant’s medical condition, how long she had suffered from it, how long she was expected to continue to suffer from it, and why it www.journalonline.co.uk
Page 1 and 2: Vol 55 No 7 JULY 2010 www.journalon
Page 3 and 4: CPD EVENTS Please view website for
Page 5 and 6: People Onthemove CAMPBELL SMITH WS
Page 7 and 8: Letters Should we resist ARTL dikta
Page 9 and 10: Opinion Should solicitors be oblige
Page 11 and 12: Feature Pro bono For the common goo
Page 13 and 14: Feature Pro bono Continued from pag
Page 15 and 16: Feature Judicial Appointments Board
Page 17 and 18: Feature Judicial Appointments Board
Page 19 and 20: Feature Legal Services Bill The Jus
Page 21 and 22: Feature Children and crime Kenneth
Page 23 and 24: Feature Family law Split decision F
Page 25 and 26: Feature Essay winner This year’s
Page 27 and 28: Feature Essay winner Brian Dempsey
Page 29 and 30: Professional news Society The Solic
Page 31 and 32: Professional news Society Specialis
Page 33 and 34: Professional practice IT Last Novem
Page 35 and 36: Professional practice Risk manageme
Page 37: Professional practice Advice What t
Page 41 and 42: Professional briefing Licensing Ame
Page 43 and 44: Professional briefing Insolvency A
Page 45 and 46: Professional briefing Charities A p
Page 47 and 48: Professional briefing Web review Ot
Page 49 and 50: In-house Public Services Ombudsman
Page 51 and 52: Property Property review As uncerta
Page 53 and 54: Property Property review Continued
Page 55 and 56: Property Property review Continued
Page 57 and 58: Sidelines Members abroad Working th
Page 59 and 60: Sidelines Books extra Books, but no

Professional briefing - The Journal Online

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?