Single action rule applies to simple procedure claims
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.