SHERIFF DAVID SUTHERLAND

David Sutherland,  a solicitor from Inverness,  was the resident sheriff at Stornoway for many years until he retired in 2020.  We know nothing about the man or his abilities but,  according to the Sheriff Appeal Court,  he made a major and monumental mess of his very last case at Stornoway. Let's have a look.

In 2015,  famer Iain Scott of Stoneyfield Farm on the outskirts of Stornoway raised an action of damages at Stornoway Sheriff Court against Scottish Water over alleged poisoning  of his cattle from a sewage discharge on his land and for which he blamed Scottish Water. After hearing the evidence of some 29 witnesses,  Sheriff Surtherland found in Mr Scott's favour and awarded him the sum of £272, 711.28 in damages. That's more than a quarter million GBP,  a lot of money. 

Scottish Water appealed on a number of grounds,  including a ground that the sheriff got the evidence hopelessly and overwhelmingly wrong in what was,  essentially,  an uncomplicated Civil case of damages.

The Sheriff Appeal Court agreed and allowed Scottish Water's appeal.    Not only did the Sheriff Appeal Court repudiate Sheriff Sutherland's findings,  they said  that  'we are unable to accept,  having read the transcript following 16 days of evidence,  the lengthy submissions following proof,  and having heard two days of submissions on appeal,  that the sheriff has adequately or informatively dealt with the evidence in this case,  or that he has explained his findings in a logical or supportable manner.  We have not been able to identify,  from the sheriff's judgement,  whether ot not Scottish Water has breached any duty of care towards Mr Scott.  This appeal must succeed'. 

That was the mildest criticism of the sheriff,  as it happens.  The Sheriff Appeal Court lambasted the sheriff also for the delay the case took to conclude,  from when the case started in 2015 to nearly 7 years later at the end of 2021.  The sheriff took 3 years, alone,  to produce his judgement from when the last of 29 witnesses was heard. It was not by any means a mammoth task.  The Sheriff Appeal Court described the delay as 'unconscionable' for which read 'disgraceful'.  And,  to add insult to injury,  the appeal court added that if Mr Scott had maintained his case on appeal,  the damages would have been reduced to £125, 958.88,  some 54% less than awarded by the sheriff.

If this is the standard that prevailed at Stornoway Sheriff Court over the 20-odd years of Sheriff Sutherland's tenure,  we cannot but wonder what other problems from the past are lying on the register of proceedings.

(The case can be found at  Scott v Scottish Water  (2022 SAC (CIV) 30 STO-A4-13 on the Scottish Courts website.  The case was covered briefly by the Stornoway Gazette but only from the angle of being very critical of the Sheriff Appeal Court rather than the sheriff,  censorship by any other name. The Gazette should have taken a far more objective view and should have covered the matter properly and realised that the villain in this particular piece was Sheriff Sutherland and not the Sheriff Appeal Court.  The West Highland Free Press didn't cover the matter at all.  Shame on both papers.)