X (Respondent) v Y (Appellant)

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2026/0135

Parties

Appellant(s)

Y

Respondent(s)

X

Issue

Where a curator ad litem is appointed solely to conduct cross-examination in place of a party litigant, what procedures, if any, should be prescribed by the court to permit the party litigant to communicate with, and/or further instruct, the curator ad litem during cross-examination, so as to ensure that litigant’s practical and effective participation in the cross-examination as required by Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”)?

Facts

In 2022, the Appellant (“Y”), was criminally convicted of assaulting, and displaying threatening and abusive behaviour towards, his former wife, the Respondent (“X"). On account of Y’s actions, X also pursued a civil action for harassment against Y under Section 8 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. At the proof before answer of the harassment action, Y represented himself. This would have resulted in Y questioning X in cross-examination. Given this prospect, X made a successful vulnerable witness application. X was therefore cross-examined by a curator ad litem (an independent, court-appointed, representative). At first instance in the Outer House, the Lord Ordinary found for X, awarding her £200,040 in damages for harassment. Y appealed to the Inner House on a number of grounds, all of which were dismissed. One of those grounds related to the curator ad litem. The submission was that, because of the curator’s appointment, Y did not enjoy ‘equality of arms’ at first instance, as required by Article 6 ECHR. It is on this ground that Y now appeals to the Supreme Court.

Date of issue

11 September 2026

Case origin

PTA

Permission to Appeal

Justices

Lord Reed

Lady Rose

Lord Snowden

Permission to Appeal decision date

29 October 2026

Permission to Appeal decision

Refused

The application does not raise an arguable point of law of general public importance that the Supreme Court ought to hear at this time.

Back to top