Civil Recovery Orders not penal or in breach of ECHR. Civil recovery orders made pursuant to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 were not penal in nature and did not breach the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 Art.7.
|
Application for Search Order - No abuse of process. Points of claim served by the respondents, whereby they alleged that there had been an abuse of process on the part of the applicant in seeking and obtaining a search order, were struck out as they stood no real prospect of success.
|
Interim Injunctions. Claimants who secured interim injunctions pending a speedy trial had to carry out their obligation to work diligently towards achieving a speedy trial.
|
Proceedings not an abuse of process. In the circumstances it was not an abuse of process for the claimants to bring proceedings against the defendant joinery company alleging design defects in windows and doors that it had fitted, even though they had previously brought proceedings alleging defective workmanship only.
|
No waiver of right to complain of Recorder’s bias. A decision by a party to agree to a recorder continuing to hear an action in circumstances where the recorder's professional connection with the other party precluded him from sitting as a judge in the case did not amount to waiver of his right to complain of bias as the decision was not made freely and was not made with knowledge of all the relevant information.
|
Arbitration. Where the parties had expressly agreed that their disputes should be resolved by an arbitrator under arbitration that would be governed by Swiss law and have its seat in Switzerland, the natural consequence of that agreement was that any issues as to the validity of the unusual provisions of the arbitration agreement would fall to be resolved in Switzerland according to Swiss law. In the circumstances there were cogent reasons why the arbitrator should not be restrained by interim ...
|
Error in refusing adjournment. The master had erred in refusing an adjournment so as to allow the claimant to deal with evidence served by the defendant close to the date of trial where there was not equality of arms between the parties and where the evidence served by the defendant required to be answered.
|
The right to attend a civil trial. The right to attend a civil trial was not an absolute right and the judge had been correct to refuse to stay proceedings despite the fact that the appellants would be unable to attend the proceedings as they had surrendered their passports as part of their bail conditions in Zambia. An order ring-fencing proceedings in England provided appropriate protection to the appellants.
|
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.
|
Reclaiming Motion Following Debate on Procedure Ro
-This reclaiming motion was brought against an interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary dated 4 March 2005 following a procedure roll debate. In the interlocuter the Lord Ordinary decerned against the first and second-named reclaimers jointly and severally for payment to the respondents of ú306,178.80, with interest he found that the first and second-named reclaimers were bound in terms of a personal bond dated 25 May 1989 granted by them in favour of the respondents he found that the first and second- ...
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |