What can we help you with today?
Scottish Power Energy Retail Limited v Greens Retail Limited
Please note: This case has settled extrajudicially and will no longer call in court.
Scottish Power Energy Retail Limited v Greens Retail Limited
Wednesday 26 August 2026
10:30 to 13:00 then 14:00 until conclusion
First Division
[1] This reclaiming motion (appeal) deals with three commercial actions in which the parties to each action are the same. The respondent (ScottishPower) sued the reclaimer (Greens Retail Ltd) for outstanding energy charges in three different premises.
[2] The actions were served on the reclaimer on 11 November 2025. Defences were due to be lodged with the court by 11 December 2025. However, the reclaimer did not instruct legal representation until 27 November 2025. This caused a delay in lodging defences. Defences were lodged on 14 December 2025.
[3] The preliminary hearing was scheduled for 6 January 2026. This hearing was discharged and a further preliminary hearing was rescheduled for 13 January 2026. This was two clear months after the actions had been served on the reclaimer.
[4] At the preliminary hearing the commercial judge observed that the defences in all three actions remained in skeletal form. His view was that the defences disclosed no matter of fact or law which truly represented a defence to the action, and did not understand counsel for the reclaimer to demur from that view when it was expressed to him.
[5] He granted decree de plano (disposal of the action without considering the merits due to insufficient defences) in favour of the respondent. He did so for three reasons: first, he considered that the reclaimer had ample time to state a defence and he had not done so; second, counsel for the reclaimer was not able to assure the court that he was satisfied if such a defence did, in fact, exist; and third, no explanation was provided for the state of affairs.
[6] The reclaimer challenges the commercial judge’s decision in pronouncing decree de plano on three grounds. First, that the commercial judge acted beyond his powers and disposed of the action prematurely. Second, that the commercial judge acted irrationally as no other commercial judge would have done. Finally, the commercial judge did not adequately consider the balance between the speed and efficiency expected in the commercial court with the interest of justice.
[7] The respondent in answer submits that the commercial judge acted within his powers; that he acted rationally considering that there was no defence stated and there was likely going to be a delay in the commercial court; and finally, they consider that the commercial judge did have consideration to the interests of justice.
[8] The reclaimer lodged on 17 March 2026 draft defences, along with inventories of productions in each action. It is for the Inner House to consider, if a motion is made to amend the pleadings, whether these materially alter the position.
[9] The case will be heard by the First Division on 26 August 2026 at 10.30am.