COYLE v WILLIAM FAIREY INSTALLATIONS Ltd
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 28 September 1990 |
| Date | 28 September 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 2. |
| Court | Court of Session (Inner House - Extra Division) |
EXTRA DIVISION.
Lord Sutherland.
Expenses—Award—Level of expenses—Lord Ordinary awarding expenses to pursuer on summary cause scale without sanctioning employment of counsel—Whether Lord Ordinary erred—Case settling for £1,000—Relevant considerations to be taken into account by Lord Ordinary—Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1971 (cap. 58), sec. 35 (1).1
Section 35 (1) of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1971 enacts,inter alia, that: "The definition of “summary cause” contained in para. (i) of sec. 3 of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1907 shall cease to have effect, and for the purposes of the procedure and practice in civil proceedings in the sheriff court there shall be a form of process, to be known as a “summary cause”, which shall be used for the purposes of all civil proceedings brought in that court, being proceedings of one or other of the following descriptions, namely—(a) actions for payment of money not exceeding £1,500 in amount (exclusive of interest and expenses)."
A pursuer raised an action of damages in the Court of Session in respect of personal injuries which was settled for the sum of £1,000 by way of minutes of tender and acceptance. The question of expenses was left open in the settlement for determination by the court. Expenses on the Court of Session scale were sought by the pursuer and this was opposed by the defenders. In his interlocutor the Lord Ordinary (Sutherland) awarded expenses to the pursuer on the summary cause scale without sanctioning employment of counsel. The pursuer had sued for £10,000 and at the time of raising the action the limit of value for summary causes in the sheriff court had been £1,000. The Lord Ordinary stated that had the action been raised in the sheriff court the appropriate place for it would have been on the summary cause list as the settlement was within the summary cause scale. The pursuer reclaimed to the Inner House.
Held (rev. judgment of Lord Sutherland) (1) that it was clear that the Lord Ordinary had based his decision on the value of the settlement, taking the view that because of that value the case was appropriate for decision as a summary cause in the sheriff court, but that reference had not been made to sec. 35 of the 1971 Act and it might readily be accepted that the settlement must have made some allowance, however slight, for a risk of failure on the merits, or of a finding of contributory negligence, and, as the amount sued for was £10,000, there was no question but that if the pursuer had raised an action in the sheriff court, it would have proceeded on the ordinary roll and would not appropriately have been placed on the summary cause list, so that the Lord Ordinary had misapprehended the position in this respect and it was clear that he had proceeded partly on the basis of that misapprehension; (2) that the amount of any settlement or award was of course relevant in determining whether modification should be made to expenses awarded to a pursuer in an action brought in the Court of Session but it did not provide the only criterion by which that matter was to be determined, for the proper approach was that in respect of actions brought in the Court of Session the court should determine whether the initial choice of that forum was justified in all the circumstances of the case known to the pursuer's advisers when the action was raised, having regard to the high level of costs likely to be incurred by bringing an action there, and the court's judgment on that matter might be assisted by a consideration of events
which had occurred subsequent to the date on which the choice was made, including the very important...Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Benson v City of Edinburgh District Council
...defender's motion that expenses be modified to the sheriff court scale. Cases referred to: Coyle v William Fairey Installations LtdSCUNK 1991 SC 16; 1991 SLT 638; 1991 SCLR 248 DTZ Debenham Thorpe v I Henderson Transport ServicesSCUNK1995 SC 282; 1995 SLT 553; 1995 SCLR 345 Gillespie v Fitz......
-
Raymond Mcateer V. Glasgow City Council
...Matthews in Emerson v The Edrington Group Ltd 2009 CSOH 40. [6] Finally, Mr Lugton referred me to Coyle v William Fairey Installations Ltd 1991 SC 16. The case had settled for the sum of £1,000. The Lord Ordinary awarded expenses on the summary cause level because the sum finally awarded wa......