This was a case concerned with solicitors’ negligence, but the findings on what constitutes “knowledge” for the purposes of section 14A of the Limitation Act 1980 are likely to have wide application in the law of negligence of construction professionals. Their Lordships held that “knowledge” meant knowing with sufficient confidence to justify embarking on the preliminaries to the issue of a claim; and that knowledge that damage was “attributable” in whole or in part to the defendant’s acts or o ...
|
The first part of the rule in Wheeldon v Burrows (1879) LR 12 Ch D 31 has no application on a conveyance made on enfranchisement under s.8(1) of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. The application of the second rule in Wheeldon was limited by the need to construe the conveyance executed so as to give effect to the common intention of the parties and by s.10(2)(ii).
|
Limitation. Under the Limitation Act 1980 s. 14 A (8) (a), the information required to determine whether the damage was “attributable” was knowledge of the facts giving rise to the “essence” of the pleaded case. Whilst s. 14 A (9) expressly excluded the relevance of knowledge negligence, inevitably language of “fault” might well be used to described the knowledge required under s. 14 A (8) (a). This could be done without subverting the purpose of s. 14 A (9). In respect of negligent advice to i ...
|
Part-time firefighters have been given the go-ahead to claim equality with their full-time colleagues following the House of Lords decision in Matthews & Others v Kent & Medway Fire Towns and Fire Authority & Others. The retained firefighters, backed by the Fire Brigades Union, claimed discrimination on the grounds that they are currently unable to join the fire service occupational pension scheme and have less favourable sick pay rights than their full-time colleagues. The Lords’ reasoning wa ...
|
D ran a defence that involved his wife. His wife was not called to give evidence in support, and the prosecution relied upon that fact when making a closing speech to the jury. Held: Such comment was wrong and should not have been made. It infringed s.80A PACE 1984. However, in the instant case the conviction was safe as the judge had given a strong direction to the jury not to speculate as to why the wife was not called. Had that warning not been given, the conviction might have been unsafe.
|
In order to prove previous convictions the prosecution relied upon memoranda of conviction. The court held that proof was not a matter of law, but of fact. The circumstances that would establish a prima facie case of identity depended on the unique facts of each case.
|
Limitation Act 1980 – Date of knowledge. The requisite knowledge for the purposes of the Limitation Act 1980 s.14A(8)(a) was knowledge of the facts constituting the essence of the complaint of negligence. In the circumstances the relevant date was not when the claimant first knew that he might have a claim for damages but the earlier date when he first knew enough to justify setting about investigating the possibility that the defendant's advice was defective.
|
Personal Injury Action - Motion for Decree in term
The pursuer's motion was opposed by the defenders but only in relation to expenses. The defenders moved for modification of the pursuer's expenses to expenses on the sheriff court ordinary scale without the sanction for counsel.Rule 42.5.(1) of the Rules of the Court of Session 1994 provides that: "In any cause where the court finds a party entitled to expenses, the court may direct that expenses shall be subject to such modification as the court thinks fit". The Court here examined whether ther ...
|
Criminal Appeal by Stated Case Possession of "offe
The Appellant was found guilty at Glasgow Sheriff Court in relation to a charge:- "On 4 March 2004 at 600 Aikenhead Road, Glasgow he did without lawful authority or reasonable excuse have with him in a public place an offensive weapon, namely a wooden truncheon Contrary to the Criminal Law (Consolidation)(Scotland) Act 1995 section 47(1)" (the Act). The questions posed for the court here were:-"1. Did the Sheriff err in finding that the respondent had disproved that the appellant had a reasonabl ...
|
Action for Declarator re Notice for Termination of
The issue in this case was whether a break option in a lease of the premises at Enterprise House, 45 North Lindsay Street, Dundee was validly exercised by the defenders, the tenant or whether the pursuers, the landlord of the premises, were barred from denying that the option was validly exercised. The proceedings in which the issue arises take the form of an action for declarator that the defenders had not validly terminated the lease of the premises that a letter sent by solicitors for the def ...
|
| 1 |