At Oban Sheriff Court this morning (26th February) Sheriff Simon Pender upheld the plea by the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) that the case pursued against it in the Small Claims Court by retired QC Ian Hamilton (one of the gang of four students who liberated the Stone of Destiny from Westminster in 1950) would have to be heard in a higher court.

The bank’s argument was that the complexity of the case and of its potential consequences meant that it would need to be heard in a court higher than the Small Claims Court. Sheriff Pender agreed.

Mr Hamilton had made clear in advance that, if this decision went against him, he would have no option but to withdraw his case – and he has now done that. The Small Claims Court limits the amount that a losing litigant can be required to pay in respect of the costs of the other side. This is not the case in the Sheriff Court or any other higher court.

Mr Hamilton had initially taken his case to the Small Claims Court to claim against the RBS for negligence in raising a share issue without disclosing its financial position – and also as a way also of testing the ordinary person’s access to affordable justice.

It has been Mr Hamilton’s contention that the RBS move in arguing for the case to be heard in a higher court – where, should he lose, he would have no protection against the level of costs imposed – was intended to achieve just what has happened today. The case has been withdrawn.

The issue may not have gone to court but Mr Hamilton has made two notable scores.

• The publicity accorded to the case – and, ironically, to the RBS’s now successful attempt to have it transferred to a higher court – has meant that Mr Hamilton’s perception of the bank’s actions are now widely known and largely accepted.
• The lack of any judicial protection for the ordinary person to take legal action against an opponent with deep pockets has been laid bare.

David may not have felled Goliath but he has left his mark.