How this page is put together

Most legal websites in Scotland do not cite cases at all. Those that do tend to cite the same handful of famous ones, and a good number of them cite English decisions that do not apply here. Neither approach helps somebody trying to work out where they stand.

So the rule for this page is a narrow one. A case appears here only if the judgment itself has been read from beginning to end. Not the headnote, not a summary, not a secondary account of it. Where a decision is described below, the description comes from the judge’s own reasoning, and the link takes you to the same document that was read. If a case cannot be reached and read, it does not go on the page, however useful it would have been.

Wills, executries and inheritance

Allan Scott against Lorna Reeves and others [2026] SC GLA 57

Sheriff Court at Glasgow · Sheriff A F Deutsch · opinion dated 24th December 2025, published 5th May 2026

Mrs Ruby Scott died in March 2021 at the age of seventy-seven. She had made a will through a solicitor in October 2011, dividing her estate equally between her three children. After her death a second will appeared. It was a two-page printed pro forma, filled in by hand, and it bore to have been signed in April 2019. It cut one son and one daughter out almost entirely in favour of a third child, Lorna Reeves. Her brother raised an action to have it set aside.

The sheriff reduced the second will, and did so on two grounds, which he analysed separately before sustaining the pursuer’s pleas on both. The first was facility and circumvention. Mrs Scott had been diagnosed with vascular dementia in September 2018 and by 2020 was frail, intermittently delirious and significantly affected by the dementia. On the facts the sheriff found, facility of that kind, taken together with the fact that the person who arranged the deed was also the person who benefited from it, allowed him to infer circumvention without separate proof that persuasion had actually occurred. That is an inference drawn on particular facts, not an automatic rule. The second ground was undue influence: the daughter controlled her mother’s finances and care, took the benefit, and no independent legal advice was taken at any point.

What broke the case open was a date. The pro forma document used for the will was not published until November 2019. It could not have been signed in April 2019, because it did not exist. The sheriff found the misdating deliberate, timed to line the will up with a capacity certificate obtained for an unrelated purpose. Of the daughter’s part in it he said that the use of “a pro forma completed in manuscript by the first defender herself, supports that inference”.

Why it matters. This is the clearest recent illustration of why home-made and off-the-shelf wills go wrong. Nothing about the document was forged in the ordinary sense. It failed because of who filled it in, who benefited, what the maker’s health was at the time, and the absence of anybody independent in the room. If you are thinking of preparing a will for an elderly relative who stands to leave you something, this is the case to read first.

Read the full judgment · Contesting a will in Scotland

David Scott Chalmers against David Goodfellow Melville [2026] SAC (Civ) 50

Sheriff Appeal Court · Sheriff Principal Gillian A Wade KC · 18th May 2026

A man died in August 2024 owning a hotel in Crail. One room in it was let out. His executor served a notice to quit on the occupier in December 2024, but was not confirmed as executor until May 2025. The tenant argued the notice was worthless, because at the time it was served the person who sent it had no title to send it.

The Sheriff Appeal Court held that the notice was good. An executor’s authority, once confirmation is granted, reaches back and validates what was done beforehand on the strength of an underlying sound title. The court found no authority directly in point and reasoned by analogy from the executor’s powers as a trustee under section 4 of the Trusts (Scotland) Act 1921 and from the vesting provision in section 14(1) of the Succession (Scotland) Act 1964, following Garvie’s Trustees v Garvie’s Tutors 1975 SLT 94, where an unconfirmed executor’s lease notice was held to be a good notice. The attempt to draw a line between routine administrative acts and acts affecting third parties was rejected as having no support in any authority.

Why it matters. Confirmation takes time, and families administering an estate frequently need to act before it comes through — particularly where property is let or standing empty. This decision says that acting early does not automatically destroy what you have done. It is not a licence to ignore confirmation, but it removes a trap.

Read the full judgment · Sorting out an estate in Scotland

Buying and selling a home

Richard Madden and others against McEwan Fraser Legal [2026] SAC (Civ) 51

Sheriff Appeal Court · Sheriff Principal N A Ross, Appeal Sheriff W A Sheehan, Appeal Sheriff J Kerr · 16th July 2026

A couple bought a farm near Bathgate in 2018. They had told their solicitors they wanted to own the private access road outright. When settlement went through they found they owned it in common with the neighbouring proprietors instead. They sued the firm that acted for them. The sheriff found the firm liable and awarded damages. The firm appealed on liability and on the amount.

The appeal was refused on every ground. The standard of care had been agreed between the parties before the proof — clear communication in plain language, addressing any apparent misunderstanding, and drawing a potentially serious problem to the client’s attention — so the case turned on whether that standard had been met on the facts, and the appellate court would only interfere if the sheriff had been plainly wrong. He had not. The duty the firm was held to was one of advice and communication, not a guarantee that any particular title would be achieved. The firm’s expert evidence was rejected because the experts had proceeded on assumptions that did not match the facts the sheriff found. The argument that these were sophisticated clients who needed less explanation was dismissed in a sentence worth remembering: “Experience of running a business does not equate to expertise in conveyancing.”

On the money, the court let stand the figure the parties had agreed at proof, namely at least £54,203 as a reasonable estimate of the cost of putting the title right through the Lands Tribunal, interest of £5,357.73, and £3,000 for inconvenience, describing the last as modest.

Why it matters. Access rights are one of the most common things to go wrong in a Scottish purchase, and they are almost always invisible until years later, when you want to build, sell or stop somebody driving over your ground. This case also settles a point clients often worry about: being commercially experienced does not reduce what your solicitor owes you.

Read the full judgment · Claiming against a professional who got it wrong

Injury claims

Wendy Hepburn against Deeside Crewing Services Limited and another [2026] SC ABE 92

Sheriff Court at Aberdeen · Sheriff Ian Wallace · 3rd July 2026

A man working aboard an offshore vessel fell in his cabin in January 2024, was left quadriplegic, and died six months later. Before raising any claim, his widow applied to the court to make the two companies involved hand over documents — employment records, accident reports, ballast and stability records, and the vessel’s position and weather data for the two days in question. The companies argued the application was incompetent and that her case was too poorly pled to justify it.

The sheriff granted the order in part, on seven refined calls. Three points carried it. The procedural objection failed because the rule relied on is read as applying as the circumstances require, and there being no urgency, the sub-rule the companies pointed to had no work to do. On the substance, an applicant at this stage need only show that proceedings are likely and that an order is appropriate, with a case that is intelligible and stateable — not one that would survive full legal debate. And the fact that a formal marine accident investigation had been discontinued did not defeat her, because no expert had yet had sight of the documents. The sheriff’s summary of the position was blunt: “early disclosure is in the best interests of all parties.”

Why it matters. After a serious accident at work, almost all the evidence belongs to the employer. This decision shows that you do not have to raise a court action first, and you do not have to have a perfectly drafted case, to make a company produce the records. The bar at this stage is deliberately low.

Read the full judgment · Accidents at work in Scotland

Children and separation

JM against JR [2026] SC EDI 90

Sheriff Court at Edinburgh · Sheriff Wendy A Sheehan · 26th June 2026

Separated parents of two children, after a relationship of about twenty years. The father asked the court for a broadly equal division of the children’s time. The mother, who had been the main carer since separation, wanted the existing pattern kept.

The court refused equal shared care and made a shared residence order reflecting broadly what was already happening. Both parents were found to be loving and capable, and the children were thriving. The central factor was section 11(7D), which asks whether cooperation between the people involved is actually achievable. The father refused direct communication with the mother, made unilateral decisions including about healthcare, and was open about not trusting or respecting her. Equal care needs the adults to run a joint operation, and this was not one. The sheriff put it in nine words: “The pursuer is an able parent but a woeful co-parent.”

Why it matters. Fifty-fifty is one of the most searched questions in Scottish family law, and it is widely assumed to be a starting point. It is not. The court is not scoring the parents against each other; it is asking whether the arrangement will work, and an arrangement that requires constant cooperation will not be ordered where cooperation is not there.

Read the full judgment · Arrangements for children in Scotland

Gary MacKenzie against Donna Sutherland [2026] SC GLA 93

Sheriff Court at Glasgow · Summary Sheriff Anna Reid · 26th January 2026

A father applied to have contact with his two daughters restored. He had last seen them in 2021. In 2022 he had pled guilty to domestically aggravated stalking and to breach of bail, and had received a significant custodial sentence.

Contact was refused altogether, direct and indirect. What makes the decision instructive is that the sheriff expressly found him to be a loving father whose earlier contact had gone well. The refusal did not rest on his parenting. It rested on his proven abuse of the children’s mother and its continuing effect on her, on hostility that had not abated — during the proof itself he made a cruel remark about her father which reduced her to tears and forced an adjournment — and on the firmly held views of the children themselves. The sheriff concluded there was “no realistic prospect of contact operating in a manner which promotes the welfare of [the children].”

Why it matters. It answers a question people ask in both directions. Being a good parent to the children is not, on its own, enough where there has been abuse of the other parent, because the statute requires the court to look at the effect of that abuse on the person caring for them. And children’s own views carry real weight, not token weight.

Read the full judgment · Arrangements for children in Scotland

Craig Smith against Lynn Michael [2026] SC GLA 95

Sheriff Court at Glasgow · Summary Sheriff Anna Reid · 3rd June 2026

An unmarried father who was not named on either child’s birth certificate applied for a declarator that he was the father, for registration, for full parental responsibilities and rights, and for weekly contact. He had a domestic abuse conviction and had later breached a non-harassment order. Paternity was not in dispute.

The outcome was split, and the reasoning is the useful part. Declarator of paternity was granted and registration ordered, but the sheriff made clear that declarator does not by itself confer parental responsibilities and rights — that requires a separate welfare assessment under section 11. Declarator establishes who the father is; being registered as the father is a different matter again; and neither is the same as the responsibilities and rights the court went on to grant under section 11. On that assessment she weighed a threat he had made at separation in November 2022, which the sheriff accepted he had made, to kill the children if he saw them outside a contact centre, and which she described as cruel and disturbing, against consistent and positive supervised contact since November 2024, contact centre reports recommending progression, and his engagement with the Caledonian Men’s Programme. The result was two hours of supported contact each week at a contact centre with the younger child, indirect contact only with the elder, and parental rights granted on a deliberately narrow basis — enough to maintain contact and to see health and education records, but no wider decision-making.

Why it matters. Three things unmarried fathers in Scotland regularly get wrong are all dealt with here: getting onto the birth certificate is a separate question from proving paternity; neither of those automatically brings parental rights; and rights can be granted in part rather than all or nothing.

Read the full judgment · Arrangements for children in Scotland

KMP against GG [2026] SC STI 89

Sheriff Court at Stirling · Sheriff Elizabeth McFarlane · 15th June 2026

Contact orders had been made in late 2023 in favour of the non-resident parent. The resident parent applied to vary them to nil, pointing to sustained inconsistency about contact, repeated unfounded complaints to the police and social work, and confrontational behaviour towards the school and social work staff which had led the local authority to stop facilitating supervised sessions.

The court found a material change of circumstances and reduced contact to nil. The resident parent, the social worker and the head teacher were all found credible; the other parent was not, and his conduct during the proof itself — he had to be removed from court and warned about contempt — was taken into account. The child had said he wanted contact. The sheriff acknowledged that but did not follow it, holding the child not yet of an age or maturity to understand what was at stake, which matched the welfare reporter’s caution. The finding that decided it was a wide one: “It is difficult to see how the defender would be able to cooperate with the pursuer in relation to matters affecting C.”

Why it matters. Read against MacKenzie, this case shows that the conduct which ends contact is not confined to how a parent treats the other parent. Behaviour towards schools, social workers and the court itself is evidence of whether any workable arrangement is possible. It also shows that a child asking for contact does not settle the question.

Read the full judgment · Arrangements for children in Scotland

Harassment and disputes between neighbours

Carolann Curran against Christopher Sinclair and Christina McIntosh [2026] SAC (Civ) 45

Sheriff Appeal Court · Sheriff Principal A Y Anwar KC, Sheriff Principal N A Ross, Appeal Sheriff J F Kerr · 7th July 2026

The pursuer sought a non-harassment order under section 8 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, with a power of arrest, and £10,000 in damages from each of two people. Her complaint was that they had harassed her by making false allegations about her to the police. After a proof lasting six days the sheriff assoilzied them — that is, decided in their favour outright. She appealed on sixteen grounds and lost on all of them.

Two things defeated the appeal. The first was the limit on appealing findings of fact: the sheriff had heard the witnesses, had given full reasons for finding the pursuer neither credible nor reliable, and an appeal court will not disturb that unless the decision was plainly wrong. The second is the point of general interest. Section 8(4) of the 1997 Act provides defences where the conduct complained of was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime, or was reasonable in the circumstances. Reporting a matter to the police fell within them.

Why it matters. Feuds between neighbours, former partners and family members very often run through the police, and both sides tend to believe that the other’s reports amount to harassment. The section does not put every report to the police beyond challenge. It gives the person complained of a defence, which that person must establish, and the defence turns on the purpose for which the conduct was pursued and on whether it was reasonable in the circumstances. The court was satisfied on both counts here, and the action failed. It also illustrates the cost of losing: expenses were awarded against the pursuer with a hundred per cent uplift.

Read the full judgment · Protecting yourself and your children

Debt, bankruptcy and the family home

Richard Dennis against Amanda Rose McCutcheon [2026] SC GLA 98

Sheriff Court at Glasgow · Sheriff D N Taylor · 26th June 2026

The Accountant in Bankruptcy, acting as trustee in a man’s second sequestration, sued his wife to set aside the transfer of the family home to her, worth around £850,000, as a gratuitous alienation. She answered that the transfer had simply carried out a court decree granted the month before.

At debate the sheriff struck out two of her defences and allowed the rest to go to proof. The personal bar defence failed because the conduct she relied on was that of a different trustee, acting in a different sequestration for a different body of creditors — as the sheriff put it, “a different sequestration, in respect of a different group of creditors and in a different capacity”. The solvency defence failed because a bare assertion that the debtor was absolutely solvent falls far short of what section 98(6)(a) of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 2016 requires. What survives to proof is the more interesting question: whether a transfer made to implement a court decree is a voluntary alienation by the debtor at all. The sheriff treated that as genuinely open and said it could only be answered on evidence.

Why it matters. Transferring the family home into a spouse’s name ahead of financial trouble is common and is very often assumed to be safe, particularly where a court order is involved. This decision says the court order is not automatically an answer, and that the question is fact-specific enough to need a proof.

Read the full judgment

Reading judgments for yourself

Every Scottish judgment referred to on this page came from the same place, and it is open to anyone. The Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service judgment database contains published decisions from the Court of Session, the High Court of Justiciary, the Sheriff Appeal Court, the sheriff courts and a number of tribunal and Upper Tribunal chambers, and is searchable from 1999 onwards by keyword, court or date published. The full opinion is available as a document in each case, and the neutral citation appears on the first page.

Two practical points. Scottish judgments are not on the same systems that English ones are, so a search that starts from an English database will usually miss them. And a neutral citation such as [2026] SC GLA 57 gives the citation year, the sheriff court series, the court and the assigned number. The citation year is not always the year the opinion was delivered — this very case was decided in December 2025 but carries a 2026 citation. It is the reference to quote if you want somebody to find the case.

This page is general information about decided cases in Scotland. It is not legal advice and no solicitor and client relationship arises from reading it. Court decisions turn on their own facts and the law changes.