BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Scottish Sheriff Court Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Sheriff Court Decisions >> Masters v. Whyte [2003] ScotSC 20 (14 March 2003) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotSC/2003/20.html Cite as: [2003] ScotSC 20 |
||
[New search] [Help]
SC233/97
TAGGART MASTERS v MARISHA K WHYTE
Aberdeen, 14th March 2003
Pursuers/Respondents B MacDonald
Defender/Appellant Absent
The Sheriff Principal, on the motion of the pursuers/respondents, dismisses the appeal for want of insistence; finds the defender/appellant liable to the pursuers/respondents in the expenses of the appeal; quoad ultra remits to the sheriff to proceed as accords in terms of Rule 88 of the Summary Cause Rules 1976.
Note:
The appellant did not appear today at the appeal hearing although it was clear from a letter which she had earlier written to the court that she was aware of the diet (and indeed did not intend to appear).
It was submitted by the respondents' solicitor that rule 28 of the old Summary Cause Rules 1976 (which governed this particular case) had no application in the context of an appeal to the sheriff principal and that I should accordingly dismiss the appeal there and then for want of insistence. In my opinion it is clear from the wording of rule 28 and the context in which it appeared in the 1976 Rules that it was intended to apply only to proceedings before the sheriff, and not on appeal, and accordingly I gave effect to the submission for the respondents.
