Geraldine Mcwilliams Against Richard Russell
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judge | Sheriff Principal C D Turnbull |
| Neutral Citation | [2018] SAC (Civ) 9 |
| Date | 22 March 2018 |
| Docket Number | GLW-A8741-06 |
| Court | Sheriff Appeal Court |
| Published date | 18 April 2018 |
1
SHERIFF APPEAL COURT
[2018] SAC (Civ) 9
GLW-A8741-06
Sheriff Principal C D Turnbull
OPINION OF THE COURT
in the appeal in the cause
GERALDINE McWILLIAMS
Pursuer & Respondent
against
RICHARD RUSSELL
Defender & Appellant
Pursuer & Respondent: Sanders, advocate; Wright, Johnston & Macke nzie
Defender & Appellant: Party
22 March 2018
Introduction
[1] This appeal is the latest chapter in a litigation which has as its origin an incident
which took place almost 12 years ago. The sheriff’s decision of 4 October 2017 (see
McWilliams v Russell [2017] SC GLA 64
1
) sets out a number of findings in fact. For the
reasons set out at paragraphs [42] to [46] below, these were not capable of challenge in this
appeal. Below, at paragraphs [2] to [33], is a summary which draws heavily from the
sheriff’s findings in fact and a consideration of the relevant procedural history of this most
unfortunate case.
1
see http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-general-docs/pdf-docs-for-
opinions/2017scgla64.pdf?sfvrsn=0
2
Factual and Procedural Background
[2] In May 2006, one of the appellant’s children told her class teacher that she had been
slapped on her leg twice by the appellant. The class teacher reported this matter to the
respondent, who was then the head teacher of a primary school in Glasgow (which I refer to
as “the school”). On 22 May 2006, as she was required to do in terms of a management
circular issued by the education authority, the respondent submitted a child protection
referral form to the relevant social work department. Requests for further information were
made and the respondent and class teachers compiled and, in June 2006, submitted reports
to the social work department in relation to each of the appellant’s children. The Scottish
Children’s Reporter Administration took no further action in relation to the issues raised in
the referral form.
[3] The appellant repeatedly demanded details of the contents of the reports and the
referral form. He attended at the school on a number of occasions. He was confrontational
and aggressive with school staff and with the respondent. He accused the respondent of
lying and of fabricating the content of the referral form. In a series of letters written between
October 2006 and early December 2006, the appellant demanded a written apology, the
respondent’s resignation and the payment of compensation by the education authority. He
asserted that the contents of the referral form were untrue and that the respondent was an
incompetent and dangerous individual. He threatened the respondent with negative media
attention if no offer of compensation was forthcoming. The appellant was asked to desist
from harassing the respondent and from making defamatory comments about her. He
refused to do so.
[4] No doubt as a consequence of the foregoing conduct on the part of the appellant, the
respondent raised the present action. Interim interdicts were granted, ex parte at warranting,
To continue reading
Request your trial