Auditor refused the award of an additional fee but without providing any reasons. The pursuers submitted a note of objection and it is the hearing on this note that this judgement concerns.
|
Damages are sought by relatives of the deceased. The pursuers have enrolled a motion seeking allowance of issues. The defenders submit that the complexity of the claims for loss of support and loss of services of two daughters and the maternal grandmother and the inter-relationship between these claims constitutedspecial cause.
|
Appeal against decision of sheriff who found the Defender liable for the actions of an employee who when at a training course was found to be in breach of his duties to take reasonable care for the safety of his fellow employees.
|
Service out of the Jurisdiction: An order permitting service out of jurisdiction was set aside. The claimant had failed to demonstrate that England was in fact the appropriate forum for determining a dispute relating to alleged fraudulent transfers from London bank accounts to a trust established under Guernsey law.
|
Interim injunction under Supreme Court Act 1981, s.37(1): The court continued an interim injunction restraining animal rights activists from pursuing a course of conduct which was held to amount to harassment of the "protected persons" who ran or supplied a guinea pig breeding farm. However, the court declined to impose a 200km² exclusion zone around the farm, as it had not been satisfied that the creation of an exclusion zone was reasonably necessary for the protection of the protected persons' ...
|
The Claimant failed to establish that the Court has jurisdiction to hear the claim and the defendant insurers were therefore entitled to the relief sought, namely or issue and service of the claim form to be set aside. The UK had no connection with the factual issues in the case, although it was technically the place of performance of the contractual obligations.
|
The Court will not order a speedy trial unless it is convinced that there are pressing reasons to justify doing so and the Court must take into account the needs of the other litigants involved. Save in exceptional circumstances, an order for specific disclosure would always come after the parties have made general disclosure. In fact, the instant application had been misconceived as it was not restricted to documents which related to the issues.
|
It was held not to be an abuse of process for a claimant to claim damages from a defendant in respect of sexual abuse which she had suffered where she had previously brought proceedings, seeking an injunction and damages, from the same defendant, where those previous proceedings had been effectively disposed of by the parties’ undertakings. On the facts, the claim for damages in the previous proceedings had been included for technical reasons and the present claim contained matters which had not ...
|
The duty of the court was to apply the law as it stood and permission was refused to amend the particulars of claim to add an additional head of damages which was not maintainable in established law.
|
Fresh evidence which related to the question of whether the respondent had lied at trial and deliberately inflated his claim for loss of earnings was an insufficient basis for an appeal against the trial judge’s conclusive finding against the appellant for assault and battery. Even if the appellant had been able to demonstrate to the requisite standard of proof that the respondent had deliberately inflated his claim, it would not have been right to set aside the entire judgment. As far as liabil ...
|
| 1 2 |