The claimant sought leave to appeal. Each party now sought security for costs against the other. Her action related to water damage to her house said to have been caused by road mprovements and building works erected by and with the approval of the various defendants.
Held: The rule in the House of Lords was that a non-legally aided appellant should lodge andpound;25,000 as security with the House to proceed. The Supreme Court had decide not to follow that rule. The case for an award of security was compelling. The value of unpaid costs ordered against the appellant already exceeded the value of her house, the proposed appeal appeared to be without merit, the appellants averments had already been found irrelevant, and the appeal was arguably an abuse. An order for security of andpound;20,000 was made, to be paid as a condition of proceeding with the appeal.
Judges:
Lord Hope, Deputy President, Lord Kerr, Lord Reed
Citations:
[2012] UKSC 7, UKSC 2011/0094
Links:
Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC Summary, SC
Jurisdiction:
Scotland
Citing:
Appeal from – Anderson v Shetland Islands Council and Another SCS 16-Feb-2010
The petitioner complained that the responders had constructed various properties near her house in such a way as to redirect large volumes of run-off water onto her property.
Held: The petition was dismissed. The petitioner had not relevantly . .
See Also – Anderson v Shetland Islands Council and Another SCS 15-Nov-2011
. .
Cited – Ritchie v M’Intosh 10-Jan-1881
Lord Young said that absolute impecuniosity is never the sole reason for making an order requiring payment of a sum by way of security for the costs on an appeal: ‘The conduct of the cause may be such, or other matters may transpire, which may make . .
Cited – Will v Sneddon Campbell and Munro SCS 1931
Lord Hunter said: ‘It is well settled, no doubt, that, if a man is bankrupt and if he is divested of his estate, he is not entitled to sue an action unless he finds caution. But that is only a general rule; there are exceptions even to that. On the . .
Cited – Rush v Fife Regional Council SCS 1985
The sheriff’s decision to order caution was upheld, having regard to the pursuer’s conduct, the nature of his pleadings which were said to be hopelessly irrelevant and his failure to pay the expenses awarded against him in another action. Lord . .
Cited – Stevenson v Midlothian District Council HL 1983
The pursuer was an undischarged bankrupt. The Lord Ordinary ordered him to find caution, although he was in receipt of legal aid. He said that he had had regard to the nature of the action and the pleadings, as well as to the fact that he was an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Scotland, Costs
Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.451701
