Stanley Francis Mazur Against Mitchells Roberton
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judge | Sheriff R D M Fife |
| Neutral Citation | [2018] SC EDIN 58 |
| Court | Sheriff Court |
| Date | 10 May 2018 |
| Docket Number | A585/17 |
| Published date | 26 October 2018 |
SHERIFFDOM OF LOTHIAN AND BORDERS AT EDINBURGH
[2018] SC EDIN 58
A585/17
JUDGMENT OF SHERIFF R D M FIFE
In the cause
STANLEY FRANCIS MAZUR
Pursuer
against
MITCHELLS ROBERTON
Defender
Pursuer: Party
Defender: Borland
Edinburgh, 10 May 2018
Introduction
[1] A debate in this action proceeded on 6 and 20 March 2018, thereafter on 23 April
2018 following a Minute of Amendment for the pursuer and Answers for the defenders, on
preliminary pleas in law 1-6 for the defenders and in terms of a Rule 22 Note, number 10 of
process. The amendment procedure was completed on 23 April 2018. The debate on
23 April 2018 was treated as a continued debate with supplementary submissions from both
parties.
[2] Mr Mazur appeared as party litigant. Ms Borland, solicitor, represented the
defenders.
[3] At the hearing on 23 April 2018 Ms Borland confirmed the defenders were not
insisting on their first plea-in-law, no jurisdiction. The court had been so advised when the
2
record was closed on 5 December 2017 but that had not been recorded in the interlocutor.
Accordingly, I repelled the first plea-in-law for the defenders as no longer insisted upon.
[4] While Mr Mazur had not incorporated documents into the pleadings in the course of
the amendment procedure, it was accepted by Ms Borland that for the purpose of the debate
I could have regard to all or any of the pursuer’s reduced bundle of documents lodged with
the Minute of Amendment following the debate on 20 March 2018. That bundle consists of
36 productions (“the pursuer’s bundle of productions”).
[5] Ms Borland tendered written submissions at the start of the hearing on 6 March 2018,
supplementary written submissions at the start of the hearing on 20 March 2018 and further
supplementary submissions on 23 April 2018. Ms Borland also tendered a number of lists of
authorities. Mr Mazur tendered written submissions for the hearing on 20 March 2018. I do
not intend to repeat the written submissions in detail. I refer to the written submissions for
their terms. I will refer to the written submissions where appropriate. I am grateful to
parties for written submissions which significantly reduced the length of the debate.
[6] At section 2 of the written submissions for the defenders there is a summary of the
factual background to this action. That factual background was agreed by Mr Mazur.
[7] The present action is action number 4 in a series of actions. In the present action
Mr Mazur (“the pursuer”) claims damages of £100,000 against the defenders for material
breach of contract and separately negligence and aiding and abetting the actions of
Matthew Pumphry of Primrose & Gordon, solicitor of Dumfries.
[8] Given the history of proceedings involving the parties, that this is action number 4
and that the pursuer is a party litigant I have set out at some length the reasoning for the
decisions following the debate.
3
Authorities
[9] The following authorities were placed before the court although the court was not
referred to all the authorities:
1. The Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973, Section 6 and Schedule 1(d);
2. Section 10 of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973;
3. Campbell v Campbell (1865) 3 M501;
7. Shedden v Patrick (1852) 14 D 721;
8. C v W 1950 SLT (Notes) 8;
9. Macphail, Sheriff Court Practice, 3rd Edition, paragraphs 2.104-2.110, 2.112, 9.10, 9.29,
9.30, 10.60.
10. Sections 16 and 17 of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985, as applicable to
sequestration petitions presented prior to 1 April 2008;
11. Sections 31 and 54 of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985, as applicable to
sequestrations at November 2005;
12. Liebenman v GW Tait & Sons SSC 1981 SLT 585;
14. David Johnston, Prescription and Limitation of Actions, Second Edition, paragraphs 5.65-
5.80, 622-6.29;
15. David T Morrison & Co Ltd (t/a Gael Home Interiors) v ICL Plastics Ltd 2014 UKSC 222;
16. Gordon and others, as the Trustees of the Inter Vivos Trust of the late William Strathdee
Gordon v Campbell Riddell Breeze Paterson LLP 2017 UKSC 75;
To continue reading
Request your trial