The court declined to make a final ruling on whether certain lead cases would be selected for trial from those of 45 claimants, although it favoured that route, and directed that a further case management conference should be held when the claimants had clarified issues in respect of after the event insurance and their attitude to the lead case approach.
|
Additional Fee
On 20 October the pursuer enrolled a motion in the following terms:- "On behalf of the pursuer, in respect of their failure to lodge a Note of Argument with the Account of Exenses in accordance with Practice Note no.3 of 1995, for the court to exercise its discretion under Rule of Court 2.1 and to allow the same to be received late and to allow a further Diet of Taxation to allow the Auditor to consider the pursuer's motion for an additional fee ..." Thereafter those acting for the pursuer consi ...
|
Preliminary Proof - Prescription
The defender is sued as representing the Ministry of Defence. The pursuer raised two actions against the defender. The proof in the conjoined actions is set down for 30 January 2007. A preliminary proof was held on the question of time-bar in relation to one of the actions only. The action was time-barred in terms of section 17(2) of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973. On behalf of the pursuer it was submitted that the court should exercise its discretion under section 19(A) to ...
|
The court's general case management power to extend time and to act on its own initiative was not cut down by the CPR r.3.8. The court was not powerless to extend time unless or until an application for relief from a sanction was made by the party in default.
|
Under CPR Part 35 there were circumstances in which a party dissatisfied with an amended opinion from their expert after the experts' discussion could obtain permission to rely on evidence adduced from an additional expert.
|
For the purposes of the expiry of the limitation period under the Limitation Act 1980 s.11(3) a claim was "brought" when a claimant's request for the issue of a claim form was delivered to the correct court office during its opening hours.
|
There was no principle or practice that the court could not summarily dismiss a claim where there was untested paper evidence supporting it.
|
In an application for the substitution of a new party under the Limitation Act 1980, s.35(6)(a) of the Act could not be interpreted to mean that a party's name was not given "in mistake" where a claimant, even though under a mistake at the time when the action was commenced, was not under any mistake about the identity of the party against whom it was intending to proceed at the time when the limitation period expired.
|
It was open to the parties to agree under CPR r.2.11 to extend time for the service of a claim form under CPR r.7.5. The written agreement of the parties under r.2.11 of the Rules did not have to be in a single document and could be constituted by an exchange of letters.
|
An order imposing a two-year stay on all proceedings between the parties relating to matters raised in an action between them was not a civil restraint order. The court had exercised its case management powers under CPR r.3.1(2) to achieve the overriding objective.
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |