Sheriff Appeal Court criticises ‘unacceptably’ excessive latitude afforded to disruptive litigant, refuses appeal

About this case:

• Citation:
  [2026] SAC (Civ) 45
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  Sheriff Appeal Court
• Judge:
  Sheriff Aisha Anwar

The appellant sought a non-harassment order against two former associates of her daughter, alleging that both respondents had made false allegations to the police. After over four years of procedure culminated in the sheriff dismissing the action, she appealed to the Sheriff Appeal Court.

The appeal was heard by Sheriff Principal Aisha Anwar KC, with the appellant and first respondent appearing in person and the second respondent absent.

Protracted procedural history

In 2018, the appellant’s daughter was convicted of stalking following a series of incidents involving an ex-partner (the first respondent) and his friend (the second respondent). Two years later, the appellant sought a non-harassment order, with a power of arrest, against the respondents under section 8 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, as well as £10,000 in damages. Allegations made to the police by the respondents concerning the appellant’s conduct were, she averred, false and amounted to a course of harassing conduct in terms of the 1997 Act.

A “protracted procedural history spanning 4 years” culminated in a proof in early 2025, after which the sheriff assoilzied the respondents and found the appellant liable in expenses subject to an additional charge of 100 per cent payable to the first respondent. The sheriff found the appellant to be “lacking in credibility and unreliable” and motivated by hostility towards the first respondent, a conclusion only strengthened upon the admission in evidence of a profane Facebook post she had written accusing a witness of the first respondent of perjury in separate criminal proceedings.

Before the Sheriff Appeal Court, the appellant advanced some 16 grounds of appeal, each described by the Sheriff Principal as “repetitive, prolix and not easy to comprehend”. Among their number included the submission that the sheriff had “gaslighted” the appellant; had erred in refusing to find the existence of a course of conduct despite the appellant’s failure, by her own admission, to lead evidence of more than one incident; had misinterpreted the demeanour of the appellant, who had only narrowed her eyes in the first respondent’s direction because she was short-sighted; had prejudiced the presentation of the appellant’s case through repeated interruptions and intrusive questioning; and had made various other factual errors.

Action little more than extended squabble

Leaving no doubt as to her view of the propriety of the proceedings, Sheriff Principal Anwar began her decision by noting: “This action, and appeal, have absorbed large amounts of court time and resources, to no benefit to the litigants, the public or the interests of justice. The courts operate at public expense and are under great pressure of business. This appeal was without merit, for the reasons we require to address individually, for each of the 16 grounds of appeal, below. This action amounted to little more than an extended squabble. It soaked up 5 years of procedure, 6 days of proof and a day of appeal, and considerable judicial attention and writing.”

Having dismissed as without merit all 16 of the appellant’s grounds of appeal, she added in a post-script: “This action was founded on a series of relatively trivial events. The pleadings were bloated, repetitive and full of irrelevant material. The appellant repeatedly found insubstantial reasons to delay matters, resulting in 5 years of procedure. The evidence presented at proof took 6 days due to unfocused, insulting and largely irrelevant questioning by the appellant. The appellant’s submissions lodged at the conclusion of the proof extended to a staggering 150 pages. The resulting appeal amounted to no more than a refusal to accept the result, with purported respectability through the inaccurate use of legal terminology.”

Noting the court’s “inherent jurisdiction to manage proceedings before it”, Sheriff Principal Anwar turned her attention to the court’s indulgence of the action, stating: “The latitude afforded to the appellant was unacceptably and unduly excessive. Such excesses must not be indulged, the effect of which is to permit the inordinate use of valuable court time and in turn to deny swifter access to justice for other litigants … The court ought to have intervened to direct that deliberately insulting material and averments which were clearly irrelevant to the craves, be removed … The procedure was wasteful of time and resources. The appellant bears firm responsibility for that, however, the court ought to have refused to indulge her.”

Appearing to criticise the sheriff initially assigned the appellant’s action, she continued: “These proceedings would clearly have benefited from firm case management at an early stage. While the proceedings were allocated to a specific sheriff between 2020 and 2023, it is difficult to understand what, if anything, he had done to manage the proceedings, beyond moving the cause from one diet to another. The carousel of diets finally came to a stop when the sheriff to whom the fourth diet of proof was allocated acted more decisively.”

Concluding that the appellant was “regrettably permitted” to conduct “a personal campaign against the respondents” over “a lengthy period by a failure on the part of the court to bring order to the proceedings at an early stage”, Sheriff Principal Anwar closed her decision with a discussion of remedies open to the court when faced with proceedings involving a disruptive litigant: “It is, for example, open to a court to direct that written submissions should be limited in length; that authorities should not be cited unless the litigant has read, understood and lodged them; … that diets of debate or proof should not be discharged without strong reasons; that further procedure should depend on payment of expenses already awarded and taxed, and other procedural directions … It is the court’s duty to consider how best to make use of scarce resources in focussing and resolving every dispute. That duty should be at the forefront of the minds of the judicial office holder at every hearing, whether procedural or substantive.”

The appeal was accordingly refused.