This case concerned a “pay when paid” clause. Such clauses are forbidden by section 113(1) of the Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 unless it can be shown that the third party employer is insolvent. Hare were engaged by Shepherd to fabricate and erect steelwork at a development in Wakefield. There was an express term of the contract, clause 32, which was in similar terms to the 1996 Act and defined the employer’s insolvency by reference to four alternate situations (1) an adm ...
|
In the course of negotiating settlement of a personal injury claim, Servisair's insurers wrote to JVK's solicitors advising, "We accept that our Insured is liable for the purposes of this claim, and will pay damages, to be assessed when we receive details of the claim. We will also be paying your costs in accordance with the Civil Procedure Rules."
|
Section 75 Agreements are often integral to the grant of planning permission. Typically they will be negotiated by the developer who at the time the Section 75 Agreement falls to be signed is not the land owner. The relevant Option Agreement or missives will usually make provision for the land owner to be bound to enter into the Section 75 Agreement. This case is an interesting example of where that approach may go wrong and it is therefore of considerable interest because the app ...
|
The court was wrong to refuse to admit a previous conviction for driving whilst disqualified (in order to prove that the defendant was disqualified) on the grounds that a previous application to adduce bad character had been refused.
|
The Pursuers raised a number of actions under the Commercial Court Rules (OCR Chapter 40) seeking to have the Defender in each case ordained to implement a contract for the purchase of heritable property. In the case of the Defender in the current action, the parties had entered into missives in which the Defender had offered to purchase a flat in a development being constructed by the Pursuers. In each case, the Pursuers also had an alternative crave for payment of damages failing implemen ...
|
Changes to the CJA 1991 early release provisions (enacted by the CJIA 2008) did not breach the prisoner's article 6 rights (he was still subject to release by the parole baord, while others would be automatically released).
|
The pursuer formerly worked for the defenders during which period he was exposed to asbestos and developed bilateral pleural plaques. In this action the pursuer sought damages from the defenders for his anxiety about the diagnosis and about the possibility that he might develop serious asbestos-related diseases. At common law the pursuer did not have a relevant claim for damages following on from the decision of the House of Lords in Rothwell v Chemical & Insulating Co Ltd [2008] 1 A.C. 281 ...
|
Debate:- In this action the pursuers, the proprietors of a building in Glasgow, sought damages from the defenders. In 1999 the gable wall of that building was damaged in the course of demolition works which were in progress on an adjacent building, that decision to demolish it on public safety grounds was taken by the first defenders in terms of section 13 of the Building (Scotland) Act 1959. The pursuers' case was based on negligence and nuisance against the Council and the demolition contracto ...
|
Appeal by Stated Case under section 51(11) (b) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995:- On 20 May 2008 the respondent referred the case of N M, born on 15 May 2008, to a Children's Hearing for Renfrewshire that in terms of section 52(2)(c) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 he was likely:- "(i) to suffer unnecessarily; or (ii) be impaired seriously in his health or development, due to a lack of parental care." On 28 November 2008, the sheriff, after hearing evidence, found the grounds of referral ...
|
On 12 May 2007, the pursuer was leaning into the rear nearside door of a stationary taxi in Perth when a car being driven by the defender collided with the taxi. As a result the pursuer was injured. The pursuer raised an action against the defender in which he sought damages of £500,000. The minuters defended the action on the basis that they insured the vehicle driven by the defender and the defender was not insured under the relevant policy at the time of the accident because she was driv ...
|
| 1 |