Introduction
We represented a landlord in a recent case before the Sheriff Appeal Court. The appeal arose from proceedings brought by a Registered Social Landlord (RSL) seeking recovery of possession against anti-social tenants. The decision of Sheriff Principal Wade KC provides important guidance on three recurring issues: the scope of the appellate review, the treatment of party litigants and application of the statuary reasonableness test.
Background
The tenants, referred to as L and R, had occupied the property since June 2022. Following numerous complaints from neighbours concerning anti-social behaviour, the landlord served notice of proceedings in May 2024 and subsequently raised an action for recovery of possession. The landlord made various attempts, without success, to stop the anti-social conduct prior to, and during, proceedings including a proposed management transfer and an acceptable behaviour agreement. After a three-day proof, the sheriff granted an eviction order in January 2026.
The tenants appealed to the Sheriff Appeal Court, arguing that the sheriff had erred in her findings of fact, had failed to give sufficient weight to medical evidence relating to vulnerability and disability, and had wrongly concluded that eviction was reasonable in the circumstances.
Sheriff Appeal Court Decision
Sheriff Principal Wade held that the sheriff had been entitled to grant recovery of possession because there was sufficient evidence of sustained anti-social behaviour, the landlord had taken reasonable steps to resolve matters before raising proceedings, and the decision to evict was reasonable. The court rejected the tenants’ arguments that the sheriff had failed to consider vulnerability and disability, emphasising that medical records were merely lodged but not properly led in evidence and could not be relied upon. Sheriff Wade further stressed that, while courts should ensure fairness to party litigants, judges cannot act as their legal representatives or relax the ordinary rules of evidence and procedure. The appeal was therefore refused and the eviction order upheld. The case is a useful reminder of the following:
- Appellate review has a limited role where the challenge focuses on factual findings.
- Judicial assistance available to party litigants is limited such that procedural and evidential rules remain applicable regardless of representation status.
- The requirement for proper evidential presentation of medical and vulnerability-related material.
- The statutory reasonableness test will ordinarily address proportionality concerns, unless a separate and an exceptional Article 8 challenge is clearly advanced.
Key Takeaways for RSLs
This case is useful in highlighting the importance of taking reasonable steps to stop the conduct giving rise to the anti-social behaviour before pursuing eviction. The Defenders’ refusal of those options was important to the Sheriff’s assessment of reasonableness.
