Appeal By Siteman Painting And Decorating Services Limited Against Simply Construct (uk) Llp
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judge | Sheriff W H Holligan |
| Neutral Citation | [2019] SAC (Civ) 13 |
| Date | 02 April 2019 |
| Docket Number | GLW-CA88-18 |
| Court | Sheriff Appeal Court |
| Published date | 10 April 2019 |
SHERIFF APPEAL COURT
[2019] SAC (Civ) 13
GLW-CA88-18
Appeal Sheriff WH Holligan
OPINION OF THE COURT
delivered by APPEAL SHERIFF WILLIAM HOLLIGAN
in the appeal by
SITEMAN PAINTING AND DECORATING SERVICES LIMITED, company incorporated
under the Companies Act, with registered number is 08949300 and having its registered
office at Siteman House, Unit 1, 22 Chapel Lane, Pinner, London, HA5 1AZ
Pursuers and Respondents
against
SIMPLY CONSTRUCT (UK) LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated under the
Limited Liability Partnerships Act 2000, with registered number S0302044 and having its
registered office at Clydesdale House, Springhill Parkway, Glasgow Business Park,
Baillieston, Glasgow, G69 6GA
Defenders and Appellants
Act: Howie QC and Massaro; Building Law Practice Limited
Alt: Middleton; Lyons Davidson, Edinburgh
2 April 2019
Introduction
[1] In this action the pursuers and respondents sought to enforce against the defenders
and appellants the decision of an adjudicator issued pursuant to the Housing Grants,
Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (“the 1996 Act”). They did so by raising a
commercial action at Glasgow Sheriff Court. Having heard parties in debate (and read
short) by interlocutor dated 4 December 2018 (“the December interlocutor”) the sheriff
2
repelled the appellants’ defences and granted decree de plano against the appellants. The
sheriff also found the appellants liable to the respondents in the expenses of the action as
taxed and made the usual remit to the auditor of court to tax and report. Subsequent to the
issuing of the December interlocutor, the respondents enrolled a motion seeking sanction for
the instruction of junior counsel in relation to the cause and also for an uplift in fees.
Initially the motion was opposed. An agreement was reached between parties and by
interlocutor dated 16 January 2019 (“the January interlocutor”) the sheriff sanctioned the
cause as being suitable for the instruction of junior counsel; found the appellants liable to the
respondents in the expenses of the respondents’ motion; made the usual order for remit of
the account to the auditor to tax and report, quoad ultra refused the respondents’ motion for
want of insistence.
[2] The appellants lodged a note of appeal on 30 January 2019. The note of appeal
narrates that the appeal is taken against both the December and January interlocutors. As
there was some doubt as to the competency of the appeal the appellants lodged a motion
moving the court to allow the note of appeal to be received. The appellants’ motion called
before Sheriff Principal Pyle on 4 February 2019 who assigned a hearing on competency on
20 February 2019. As I understand it, the question as to the competency of the appeal was
raised by the court. The matter called before me as procedural sheriff.
[3] Put very shortly, the main issue before me concerns what constitutes a “final
judgment”.
[4] As directed by the court, both parties lodged notes of argument which are lodged in
process. Given the timing, the notes of argument were lodged without counsel having had
the opportunity to peruse each other’s note. As some of the arguments anticipated in the
notes of argument did not materialise, not everything raised in the note of argument was
To continue reading
Request your trial