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 £5, 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 Court of Session Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Mercer (AP) v Coady (AP) [2001] ScotCS 24 (2 February 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/2001/24.html Cite as: [2001] ScotCS 24 |
||
[New search] [Help]
EXTRA DIVISION, INNER HOUSE, COURT OF SESSION
|
Lord Kirkwood Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Caplan |
X123-1 2000 OPINION OF THE COURT delivered by LORD KIRKWOOD in APPEAL From the Sheriffdom of Grampian, Highland and Islands at Stornoway in the cause PAUL MERCER (A.P.) Pursuer and Respondent: against KATHRYN COADY (A.P.) Defender and Appellant: _______ |
Act: Coutts; Brodies, W.S.
Alt: Bain; Drummond Miller, W.S. (Fleetwood & Robb, Inverness)
2 February 2001
[1] We have considered all the submissions which have been made to us today. We can well understand why the Sheriff, on the basis of the information which was apparently before him, decided to find the defender in contempt of court. However, we have now been provided with a great deal of information relating to the circumstances which affected the defender in the period prior to the hearings of 4 August and 30 August. It is not clear to us if this information was before the Sheriff and it affected the issue as to whether or not the defender had decided effectively to abandon her defence to the Minute. On the whole matter we have decided to quash the finding of contempt of court contained in the interlocutor of 30 August 1999 and also the sentence of 8 weeks imprisonment imposed on 9 November 1999 and we will remit back to the Sheriff to proceed as accords.
[2] In the light of the requirement for further proceedings we feel that it would be preferable not to express any further views at this stage on the issues which have been argued before us.
[3] We have two other comments to make. In the first place, in light of the history of this case we consider that the Minute should not proceed further before Sheriff Cameron. Secondly, it is clear, having regard to the long delays which have taken place and the interests of the child, that both the present proceedings and the proceedings in the Minute for Variation should proceed quam primum.
