About this case

Case name

Survey Group Holdings Limited and Others v Alan Purkiss

Case reference number

XA84/25

Date of hearing

Friday 20 March 2026

Time of hearing

10:30 to 13:00 then 14:00 until conclusion

Division

First Division

Judges

• Lady Wise
• Lord Clark
• Lord Ericht

Agents and Counsel

For the Appellants (SGH & Others)

• Agents: Alistair Murdoch, Solicitor, Glasgow
• Counsel: Alistair Murdoch, sol adv

For the Respondent (Mr Purkiss)

• Agents: DHM Law, Glasgow
• Counsel: Michael Upton

Case description

[1] The respondent loaned a sum of money to the appellants in return for shares in two companies. No shares were transferred, and so the respondent wishes to seek financial compensation from the appellants.

[2] In order to do so, the respondent wishes to recover certain documents. Prior to litigation this is done under section 1 of the Administration of Justice (Scotland) Act 1972. An application was made for the recovery of a schedule of documents by the respondent, and it was granted by the court.

[3] The appellants appealed this decision to the Sheriff Appeal Court. They contested that the schedule of documents was too wide, that it included commercially sensitive information, and that it was not within the discretion of the Sheriff who granted the order to do so.

[4] The Sheriff Appeal Court considered that an explanation had been provided for why the documentation was sought and for what purposes. The decision to grant the order for the recovery of documents was discretionary, and they did not consider the Sheriff had erred in exercising his discretion.

[5] The case has been granted permission to be appealed to the Inner House for consideration. The appellants argue that there was not enough information in the written pleadings to allow the respondent to seek the information that they did, and that as a consequence of granting the application, the order allows the recovery of commercially confidential material. The appellants also argue that this was not a matter of discretion for the sheriff, but a matter of pleading.

[6] The respondent in response states that the relevancy of the pleadings is not the question with which the court is concerned. The test for an application under section 1 of the 1972 Act is whether there is a prima facie case. They argue that commercial confidentiality does not constitute legal privilege, and determination of a plea of privilege can be made by delivery of documents in a sealed envelope with a motion to the court to rule on the plea. The respondent also contends that the decision to grant the order for the recovery of documents was a matter of discretion for a Sheriff.

The Extra Division will hear this appeal on Friday 20 March 2026 at 10.30am.