However, self-representation can create challenges not only for the party representing themselves, but also for courts, legal professionals and the opposing party. Where one party or both parties are self-represented, this can lead to delays and additional costs, particularly in situations where court rules are not being adhered to and legal arguments are not properly set out within written pleadings. Written pleadings and the rules surrounding the specification and relevancy of written pleadings remain a cornerstone of Scottish litigation. If a party chooses to represent themselves, they are still required to follow the relevant rules in relation to court procedure. The appeal decision in Moneybarn No. 1 Ltd v Anthony Gladwin [2026] SAC (CIV) 21 serves as a useful reminder of this.
Background
In June 2023, Mr Gladwin entered into a conditional sale agreement with Moneybarn for the purchase of a Volvo motor vehicle. The agreement was regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The total price was £17,821.33, payable by instalments. Mr Gladwin took possession of the vehicle, but did not own the vehicle until full payment of the agreed price had been made.
In March 2024, Moneybarn raised Sheriff Court proceedings against Mr Gladwin, claiming that Mr Gladwin had fallen into arrears. The court action sought payment of the outstanding balance of £16,809.87 and return of the vehicle. Mr Gladwin did not initially defend the action, and Moneybarn were able to obtain decree (judgment) for payment and recovery of the car. However, Mr Gladwin was successful in having the decree recalled, and the court action continued as a defended action. Mr Gladwin challenged the court's jurisdiction. He accepted that he had entered into the agreement and taken possession of the vehicle, but otherwise he denied Moneybarn's claim. He argued that the agreement was defective and unenforceable because of alleged non-disclosure of commission payable to Moneybarn.
Moneybarn's position was that Mr Gladwin had not put forward a valid legal defence within his written pleadings. They argued that Mr Gladwin had not explained the factual or legal basis for alleging that the relationship was unfair or the contract invalid. Therefore, Moneybarn asked the court to grant summary decree on the basis of the written pleadings, without hearing further evidence.
The first instance decision
Mr Gladwin represented himself at the hearing regarding the granting of summary decree. Firstly, the court held that Campbeltown Sheriff Court had jurisdiction. Secondly, the court held that Mr Gladwin's written pleadings lacked in specification and therefore lacked the detail needed to support a valid defence. Mr Gladwin had not explained the alleged commission arrangement, such as who paid it, when it was paid or how much the commission was. His written pleadings simply contained general denials and broad assertions, but no properly stated defence under the Consumer Credit Act.
Mr Gladwin relied on Hopcraft & another v Close Brothers [2024] EWCA Civ 1282, which concerned undisclosed commissions paid by lenders to car dealers arranging finance. However, Mr Gladwin referred to the decision only in general terms. He did not identify the parts of that case that he said supported his position. The sheriff concluded that Hopcraft did not assist him in any event and granted summary decree in favour of Moneybarn. Mr Gladwin appealed.
The appeal
Mr Gladwin appealed the sheriff's decision to the Sheriff Appeal Court (SAC). The issue at appeal was whether the sheriff had made an error in law in granting summary decree. Mr Gladwin again represented himself at the appeal hearing. He had not lodged a note of argument ordered by the court and instead relied on the points made in his note of appeal, which he lodged from the outset of the appeal. He maintained that the agreement between the parties was defective and argued that Moneybarn's failure to disclose commission made the contract unfair. He again referred to Hopcraft.
Mr Gladwin also stressed that he was a party litigant and had been unable to obtain legal advice. He said that, because of his lack of legal knowledge, he could not develop his arguments any further.
Moneybarn argued that the appeal should be refused. Their position was that Mr Gladwin was trying to re-argue the case rather than show that the sheriff had made an error of law. This was not the purpose of an appeal. Mr Gladwin had also been unable to justify his claim that the sheriff had made an error of law. In addition, Moneybarn argued that the fact that Mr Gladwin was self-represented did not excuse a lack of specification in his written pleadings.
The appeal decision
The Appeal Sheriff noted that Mr Gladwin accepted he had entered into the agreement with Moneybarn, he had received the vehicle and used it. Although Mr Gladwin generally denied being in arrears, he gave no further detail of his defence to the case raised against him. For example, he did not state that he had made all payments due under the agreement.
At the appeal, Mr Gladwin did not put forward any arguments to demonstrate that the sheriff was wrong in law to grant summary decree. In those circumstances, it was held that the test for summary decree had been properly applied at first instance. The SAC also found that there was nothing in Mr Gladwin's written pleadings or note of appeal to explain how Hopcraft applied to his case. A general reference to commission payments, without supporting facts or legal arguments, was not enough. In any event, the Appeal Sheriff noted that the decision in Hopcraft does not create a blanket rule against commission payments. The appeal was therefore refused, with expenses awarded in favour of Moneybarn.
This decision serves as a helpful reminder that a court will give some leeway to party litigants, but only to a point. A party who represents themselves must still set out a legally relevant case with enough factual detail in their written pleadings to support it. Whilst a court will make reasonable allowances for someone without legal representation, it will not overlook a lack of proper specification or legal basis. In addition, a general allegation of unfairness in relation to a contract, or a passing reference to legal authority, will not be enough if a party does not explain why that authority applies on the facts of the case. More broadly, the decision highlights the continued importance of properly prepared written pleadings in disputes in Scotland and that there are circumstances where it is appropriate to grant summary decree, even against a party litigant.
