What can we help you with today?
Stephanie Hughes v Cabot Fianancial (UK) Limited
Stephanie Hughes v Cabot Fianancial (UK) Limited
XA35/26
Friday 9 October 2026
10:30 to 13:00 then 14:00 until conclusion
Second division
[1] Simple Procedure is a court process designed to provide a speedy, inexpensive and informal way to resolve disputes. It is used for claims for payment of sums of money where the value of the claim is less than £5000.00. Simple Procedure has its own rules and processes which are distinct from ordinary court actions in the Sheriff Court or in the Court of Session. Section 77 of the Courts Reform (Scotland) Act 2014 provides that “[a]ny enactment or rule of law that prevents evidence being led on grounds of admissibility before a court of law does not apply in simple procedure cases.”
[2] The respondent, Cabot Financial (UK) Limited, raised a Simple Procedure claim against the appellant seeking payment of credit card debt. The respondent was assigned the debt by the original creditor, Bank of Scotland. The appellant does not dispute that she signed an agreement with Bank of Scotland, that she used the credit card and that the assignation of the debt from Bank of Scotland to Cabot was intimated to her.
[3] When the case called for an evidential hearing, the sheriff recorded that documents lodged in the case were agreed by parties to “be what they bore to be”. Those documents included: (i) the signed credit agreement, (ii) statements of account displaying an outstanding balance, (iii) a copy of the default notice, (iv) a copy of the assignation agreement between Bank of Scotland and Cabot; and (v) a copy of the assignation notice sent to the appellant. No further evidence was led by parties at the hearing.
[4] Following sundry procedure and argument, the sheriff found a simple debt resting, owing and due to the respondent, being the sum outstanding as shown on the statement of account.
[5] The appellant appealed to the Sheriff Appeal Court on the basis that the sheriff had incorrectly recorded the agreement between the parties as to the provenance of the documents. The appellant submitted that she had not, in fact, agreed that the documents were what they bore to be and, there having been no evidence led in support of the documents, there was no evidential basis for the sheriff’s finding.
[6] The Sheriff Principal held that section 77 of the Courts Reform (Scotland) Act 2014 permitted the sheriff to admit the documents as evidence without them having to be spoken to. It followed that the sheriff was entitled to treat the documents as evidence in the claim and to find the obligation to pay proved.
[7] On appeal to this court it is argued that the Sheriff Principal erred in holding that section 77 permitted the documents to be treated as evidence in the claim. The appellant contends that section 77 does not remove the requirement to prove the provenience of documents to allow them to be treated as evidence, but simply removes the ordinary restraints on admissibility of evidence.
[8] The Second Division of the Inner House of the Court of Session will hear the appeal on Friday 9 October 2026 at 10:30am.