Sheriff considers whether contempt of court proceedings required for use of AI in submissions
Your Home Partners v Kellichan and Hood [2026] SC KDY 34
The Sheriff Court considered a Simple Procedure claim for £5,000 in rent arrears in which the claimant (a party litigant) relied on AI generated submissions that included fictitious First-tier Tribunal decisions and non existent legislation. After the claim was twice rejected by the court, the pursuer lodged extensive further submissions and was later unable to produce genuine sources for the authorities cited. At a hearing, the claimant indicated that he had used AI and had relied on this in good faith. The Sheriff referred to the rule in R (Ayinde) v Haringey LBC that anyone using AI for legal research, professionals and lay users alike, must verify accuracy against authoritative sources. Although the lodging of false references had the potential to obstruct justice, the Sheriff found no deliberate intention to mislead, only recklessness, and concluded that the threshold for contempt of court was not met.
Read the decision here.
Sheriff Appeal Court refuses appeal in dispute over Share Purchase Agreement
Graham Ross McAteer v Matthew Chyla [2026] SAC (Civ) 12
The Sheriff Appeal Court upheld the dismissal of a defender’s attempt to avoid payment under a share purchase agreement (SPA) on the basis of alleged rescission and fraudulent misrepresentation. Although the defender claimed to have rescinded the SPA by letter and argued that restitution was possible, the court found his pleadings lacked the necessary specification: the alleged rescission letter was neither produced nor incorporated into the pleadings, and no meaningful detail was given as to how restitutio in integrum could be achieved. The court also agreed that the averments of fraudulent misrepresentation fell well short of the high standard required when pleading fraudulent. The appeal was refused.
Read the decision here.
Outer House decision on terms of two verbal sub-contracts
BPL Contracts (Scotland) Limited v Beattie FRC Limited [2026] CSOH 22
The court upheld the pursuer’s claims under two orally agreed sub contracts for works at Aberdeen Harbour (the Crown Wall Works and the Pavement Slab Works). The issue in dispute was whether the profit share was on the entire works or the labour element only, quantification of the sums due and which sub-contract a payment of £200,000 was for. The court preferred the pursuer’s evidence and their expert's methodology. The court found significant flaws in the defender’s expert assessment. This was due to the expert having based his conclusions on evidence that had not been disclosed to the court or the pursuer. There were also inconsistencies in the defender’s witness evidence. The court accepted that post contract conduct was relevant to identifying the contract terms and concluded that the pursuer’s version of the Crown Wall Works agreement, supported by contemporaneous documents, was correct, entitling it to a 50% share of net profit on the entire Crown Wall Works. For the Pavement Slab Works, the court held the pursuer had proved it was entitled to 90% of the profit, again supported by documentation and commercial context. The £200,000 payment was found to relate to the Pavement Slab works. The defender’s counterclaim was dismissed.
Read the decision here.
Motion to dismiss an action on grounds of dishonesty refused in hoc statu
Scott McSeveney v Aviva Insurance Ltd [2026] CSOH 18
The court refused a defender’s motion to dismiss a £2.5 million personal injury claim on grounds of alleged fundamental dishonesty, despite evidence that the pursuer had exaggerated his disabilities. Surveillance footage contradicted the pursuer’s claims that he was unable to drive or carry out basic daily tasks, and he had also been untruthful about his criminal history. However, the footage did not go so far as to show he was fit for work, meaning a potential claim for loss of earnings remained. The court held that dishonesty about some aspects of symptoms did not meet the threshold for dismissing the entire action as an abuse of process. The motion was therefore refused in hoc statu, leaving open the possibility of renewal if the pursuer fails to give an honest account to medical experts as the case progresses.
Read the decision here.
SAC decision on real burden prohibiting short term lets and defamation / verbal injury
Quarter Mile Serviced Apartments Limited v Spiers Gumley Property Management Limited [2026] SAC (Civ) 14
The Sheriff Appeal Court has upheld the decision that a real burden within the Quartermile Deed of Conditions validly prohibits short term letting, rejecting the appellant’s challenge that the burden was improperly created or extinguished by acquiescence. The Court confirmed that the Deed met the statutory requirements of the Title Conditions (Scotland) Act 2003 and that the “four corners rule” was satisfied, meaning purchasers could clearly identify the burden from their title and the incorporated Deed. Arguments that widespread short term letting had extinguished the burden failed due to a lack of averments showing general abandonment by owners. As the burden was found to be valid and enforceable, the respondent’s “cease and desist” letters could not be defamatory, and there was no relevant case of malice to support the verbal injury claim. Summary decree was therefore properly granted. A separate defamation case relating to alleged implications of anti social behaviour continues.
Read the decision here.
Outer House decision on standard form contract for student dentists' bursaries
Scottish Ministers v Donald Leggat and Gabrielle Griffin v [2026] CSOH 9
The Court of Session has issued a decision on the proper interpretation of standard form bursary contracts entered into by around 1,300 dentistry students, clarifying the conditions attached to receiving bursary funding in exchange for post qualification NHS service. Key terms such as “NHS earnings,” “total earnings,” the 80% NHS work requirement and the five year commitment period required detailed judicial construction. The court held that NHS earnings refer to income generated through treatment provided under the Statement of Dental Remuneration; that the 80% requirement applies year by year (not in aggregate); that justified absences such as maternity leave do not count against compliance; and that “earnings” means gross, not net. If a dentist fails to meet the threshold in any given year, they must repay a corresponding proportion of the entire bursary. It was necessary for the court to consider the contra proferentem principle. Prescription was also considered in terms of when the obligation became enforceable. It was held that the Scottish Ministers could have sued at the end of each year and not waited until the entire payment was due (for this reason some of the parts of the claims had prescribed). The judgment provides clarity for other similar claims concerning repayment demands issued by the Scottish Ministers.
Read the decision here.
