Interdict
This related to two motions relating to an interim interdict and interim order under section 47(2) of the Court of Session Act 1988 which Lord Menzies pronounced on 25 January 2006. The pursuers sought to extend the scope of the interim interdict pronounced by Lord Menzies while the defenders sought the recall of both orders. A disagreement arose between the pursuers and the defenders about the manner in which large vehicles obtain access to the pursuers' resort which they were developing. The p ...
|
Application for permission to appeal – CPR r.52.3(2). CPR r.52.3(2) and the relevant practice direction allowed a would-be appellant to apply to the lower court for permission to appeal at the hearing that the decision to be appealed was made or at a later date, if, on an application made at that hearing, the lower court adjourned the hearing in order to allow such application to be made later. Otherwise, the application had to be made to the appeal court.
|
Appeal against civil penalty – no rehearing permitted. It was not appropriate to direct a rehearing of an appeal against a civil penalty for dishonest conduct where the evidence sought to be adduced on the rehearing could and should have been dealt with in the previous hearings.
|
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 ...
|
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.
|
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.
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |