In the circumstances it had not been demonstrated that a local authority's withdrawal of its pre-action admission of liability was either an abuse of the process of the court or was otherwise likely to obstruct the just disposal of the case within CPR r.3.4(2)(b).
|
Limitation Act – S.22(a). The 12-year period under the Limitation Act 1980 s.22(a) to bring an action in respect of any claim to the personal estate of a deceased had no application to a claim to remove a personal representative of the estate. Claims against the representative to provide an account of the deceased's assets and make payment due were claims that fell within s.21(1)(b) of the Act, and although the defence of laches to the claims was not excluded by s.21(1)(b), it was not made out ...
|
Appeal to Sheriff Principal Against Extracted Inte
This appeal was a motion on behalf of the second defender for an exercise of the Sheriff Principal's dispensing power to allow her appeal against the Sheriff's interlocutor of 9 March 2005 granting decree to be heard although late. Decree in absence was granted on 9 March 2005 and the decree as extracted on 24 March 2005. Thereafter a charge was executed on the second defender personally by sheriff officers on 10 May 2005. Rule 2.1(1) of the Ordinary Cause Rules 1993 provides: "The Sheriff may r ...
|
Reparation - Minute of Amendment
On 29 June 2006 a motion on behalf of the pursuer to allow the minute of amendment for the pursuer number 26 of process to be received and to allow the defenders to lodge answers within 14 days called. The motion was opposed by the defenders. Rule of Court 24.1(1) and (2)(c) state:- "(1) In any cause the court may, at any time before final judgment, allow an amendment mentioned in paragraph (2). (2) Paragraph (1) applies to the following amendments - (c) an amendment of a ondescendence ... which ...
|
Practitioners should ensure that where separate and to some extent conflicting costs claims were to be presented, they should be presented together in a manner that made clear the relationship between them.
|
The judge had been entitled not to exercise his discretion to disapply the limitation period in a case where the claimant was suing a psychiatrist, as a result of an allegedly negligent diagnosis, seven years out of time.
|
In the circumstances the court declined to enforce a cross-undertaking in damages given when interim injunctive relief was sought in an action concerning interference with the claimant's right to light.
|
The Medical Defence Union was not amenable to judicial review. It could neither be said to be a "public body" nor did it exercise a "public function" in a respect that affected the claimant.
|
Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 – Guidance on Closure Orders. The court gave guidance on the fair conduct of proceedings for a closure order under the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 s.2.
|
It was appropriate to discharge an injunction that prohibited the identification of a child in family proceedings where the proceedings were over. However in the instant case it was not appropriate to set the injunction aside as it had been correctly made at the time.
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |