Skip to content
Law Society of Scotland
Search
Find a Solicitor
Contact us
About us
Sign in
Search
Find a Solicitor
Contact us
About us
Sign in
  • For members

    • For members

    • CPD & Training

    • Membership and fees

    • Rules and guidance

    • Regulation and compliance

    • Journal

    • Business support

    • Career growth

    • Member benefits

    • Professional support

    • Lawscot Wellbeing

    • Lawscot Sustainability

  • News and events

    • News and events

    • Law Society news

    • Blogs & opinions

    • CPD & Training

    • Events

  • Qualifying and education

    • Qualifying and education

    • Qualifying as a Scottish solicitor

    • Career support and advice

    • Our work with schools

    • Lawscot Foundation

    • Funding your education

    • Social mobility

  • Research and policy

    • Research and policy

    • Research

    • Influencing the law and policy

    • Equality and diversity

    • Our international work

    • Legal Services Review

    • Meet the Policy team

  • For the public

    • For the public

    • What solicitors can do for you

    • Making a complaint

    • Client protection

    • Find a Solicitor

    • Frequently asked questions

    • Your Scottish solicitor

  • About us

    • About us

    • Contact us

    • Who we are

    • Our strategy, reports and plans

    • Help and advice

    • Our standards

    • Work with us

    • Our logo and branding

    • Equality and diversity

  1. Home
  2. News and events
  3. Legal news
  4. Single action rule applies to simple procedure claims

Single action rule applies to simple procedure claims

10th March 2022 | civil litigation | Civil court work

A simple procedure claim by a party litigant has been dismissed as incompetent by the Sheriff Appeal Court, because it was one of three cases against the same respondent arising out of the same cause of action, albeit relating to different time periods, and together the sums claimed exceeded the simple procedure limit.

Sheriff Principal Mhairi Stephen QC gave the decision in refusing an appeal by Chaza Afandi against the sheriff's decision to dismiss her claim against City of Edinburgh Council seeking to recover sums paid in hotel bills between September and November 2016. The claimant alleged that she and her son became homeless after being evicted from a private tenancy; that an officer of the council told her to stay in hotels until she found a suitable property and send the bills to the council; and that as a severely disabled person in receipt of benefits the council had a duty to look after her. 

The claimant had raised two further and separate claims, respectively covering the periods February to May 2016 and May to September 2016. Together the sums claimed came to around £14,000. 

On appeal Ms Afandi stated that as she was not repeating either the claim or the dates there was no illegality; she had had difficulty in finding a solicitor to act, but if she could, she would put the whole case into one action. The council had not raised the question of competency.

In her opinion Sheriff Principal Stephen said it was pars judicis (inherent in its jurisdiction) for the court to consider questions of competency. While the simple procedure rules were designed with party litigants in mind, there was no change to the law or practice. It was settled law that any damages or compensation or reimbursement of losses which arose from the same cause of action must all be recovered in one action. Although the rule was most commonly encountered in cases for damages arising from breach of contract or in delict, it was not, as Ms Afandi argued, limited to these types of action.

The rule was designed to avoid a multiplicity of litigation directed at the same defender or in different courts, leading to the risk of double counting and causing unnecessary expense and inconvenience to the defender and also the court. The rule might also protect a claimant who was not legally represented from the plea of res judicata. It applied in the present case and the action and the two associated actions therefore fell to be dismissed.

Read the opinion here.

Add To Favorites

Additional

  • News and events

In this section

  • Law Society news
  • CPD & Training
  • Blogs & opinions
  • Events
  • 75th Anniversary

Categories

  • civil litigation
  • criminal law
  • employment
  • obituary
  • careers
  • practice management
  • law society of scotland
  • government-administration
  • welfare/benefits
  • family-child law
  • reparation
  • professional regulation
  • property (non-commercial)
  • insolvency
  • consumer
  • human rights
  • mental health-adult incapacity
  • planning/environment
  • europe
  • information technology
  • immigration
  • education-training
  • executries
  • corporate
  • commercial property
  • agriculture-crofting
  • dispute resolution
  • risk management
  • intellectual property
  • client relations
  • tax
  • licensing
  • banking-financial services
  • trusts-asset management
  • reviews
  • opinion
  • For the public
  • Research and policy
  • Regulation
  • Journal online news
  • interview

News Archive

  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013

Related articles

  • Tea pickers' claim better brought in Kenya: Inner House
  • Ministers set out justice programme through to 2026
  • Fee rises and more cases raise legal aid bill by 14%
  • SLAB consults about A&A and ABWOR policies
Law Society of Scotland
Atria One, 144 Morrison Street
Edinburgh
EH3 8EX
If you’re looking for a solicitor, visit FindaSolicitor.scot
T: +44(0) 131 226 7411
E: lawscot@lawscot.org.uk
About us
  • Contact us
  • Who we are
  • Strategy reports plans
  • Help and advice
  • Our standards
  • Work with us
Useful links
  • Find a Solicitor
  • Sign in
  • CPD & Training
  • Rules and guidance
  • Website terms and conditions
Law Society of Scotland | © 2025
Made by Gecko Agency Limited