Grubb v Finlay

Civil procedure – Summary dismissal of action – Expenses: Court of Session: Refusing a reclaiming motion and a cross-appeal in an action in which the pursuer sued the defender for £500,000 in respect of a whiplash injury sustained in a road traffic accident and the Lord Ordinary refused the defender's motion at a proof diet for summary dismissal of the action as an abuse of process on the basis of the pursuer's fundamentally dishonesty in relation to his claim, found in the pursuer's favour to the extent of granting decree for payment of £7,321, and found the pursuer liable to the defender in the expenses of action, modified to two-thirds, even though there was no tender extant, the court held that the pursuer did not make a fundamentally dishonest claim, he made a good, if exaggerated, claim, and it would have been quite inappropriate for the Lord Ordinary to have dismissed the action summarily during, or at the end of, the proof; and there were no grounds on which the Lord Ordinary's discretionary decision on expenses could be successfully impugned.