Considerations for Judge in whether to recuse himself. Where the claimants had intended to call a witness who was in fact well known to the judge, but had accordingly decided not to call him but to call other witnesses instead, the judge considering whether to recuse himself had to decide whether he should do so because of the risk that new facts might emerge during the course of the trial that would place that witness's role in a new light and lead the judge to conclude that he would then have ...
|
Continuation of Injunction: As the claimant had shown a good arguable case, it was held that the continuation of an injunction would better preserve the court's ability to do justice between the parties at trial than would a refusal to continue the injunction.
|
Setting Aside Default Judgment: Default judgments were set aside where the injustice of preventing the adjudged party from presenting their defence outweighed the injustice to the claimant of allowing them to present their defence.
|
Procedure Roll Debate:
Deed of Undertaking: In this action the pursuers who are tenants of a substantial office building in Glasgow claim sums totalling approximately ú10 million from three sets of defenders namely the main contractors architects and engineers who were involved in a major redevelopment of the building in the late 1980s.The owners of the building at that time were Scottish Provident but the Pursuers as prospective purchasers of the building after redevelopment sought and obtained collateral warranties ...
|
Permission to amend Defence where no prejudice: The defendant was permitted to amend its defence because there was no evidence that the amendment would prejudice the claimants.
|
Applications to adduce fresh evidence: On an application to put in fresh evidence on appeal, the Court of Appeal should be particularly cautious where what was intended was to put in, in effect, further cross-examination of a witness, including an expert, where that expert or witness had been cross-examined at a trial.
|
Appeals under Patents Act: The procedure laid down for second appeals in s.55 of the Access to Justice Act 1999 and CPR r.52.13 did not apply to appeals under the Patents Act 1977 s.97(3).
|
Appeals & Re-hearing decisions: CPR r.52.11(1)(b): Re-hearing a decision under CPR r.52.11(1)(b) was the exception to the general rule that appeals should be limited to a review of a previous decision. For a re-hearing to be in the interests of justice, some injustice had to have occurred at the previous hearing.
|
Residential property not ‘place of business’ for service of proceedings: Residential property owned by a defendant and rented out to tenants could not be classed as a "place of business" for the purpose of service of proceedings under the CPR r.6.5 merely because the defendant, or his agent, collected rent personally from the property on a regular basis.
|
Primary matter is whether it is competent at the end of an action to make expenses already awarded in an earlier interlocutor taxable on an agent and client basis. In addition two secondary questions arise: first whether the competency of varying the basis for taxation is affected by a reservation of that question made at the time of the earlier interlocutor and secondly whether rectification of the earlier interlocutor is competent and necessary.
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 |