Reclaiming motion
The defenders appealed against an interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary dated 16 December 2005 whereby he awarded to the pursuer damages of £5,150, with interest for an injury sustained by him in the course of his employment by the defenders. The Lord Ordinary held that the accident was caused by the defenders' breach of their statutory duty under Regulation 11(1) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998. He declined to make any reduction of the pursuer's award in respect of contr ...
|
Where an expert joint statement was made pursuant to CPR r.35.12 and was not privileged, it did not acquire without prejudice status because it was used in mediation.
|
Suitability of Interim Remedies as Final Orders not decided. Although the court declined to grant the interim remedies sought by members of a charity committee, their suitability as final orders after any trial was not decided.
|
Jurisdiction: Presence of Assets. The presence of assets in the jurisdiction was not a pre-condition to the exercise of jurisdiction under CPR r.6.20(9).
|
Confidentiality Assurances not absolute. Assurances of confidentiality of medical records given to patients by the General Medical Council when it was investigating serious criticisms of a doctor could not be regarded as absolute, since, as well as being subject to the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 and their implementation by the court, the assurances might be subject to overriding requirements that other considerations be given priority, the matter being determined by where the interests of justic ...
|
No duty to mention offer of acceptance of money in Court in context of subsequent offer. In the circumstances, a solicitor was not under a duty to mention an offer of acceptance of money in court when the opponent began negotiating a higher offer in ignorance of the earlier offer of acceptance.
|
Summary Judgment. Summary judgment was granted to an insurer against a reinsurer on grounds that the insurer's settlement with the assured was, in law, the settlement of a claim that fell within the risks covered by the reinsurance contracts. The insurer was able to rely on purported "without prejudice" letters from the reinsurer as evidence that the reinsurer had no defence to a claim up to the sum specified therein.
|
When deciding whether to release a party in whose favour a freezing order had been made from an undertaking not to use, in contempt proceedings, information obtained from the other party as a result of the order, the court should consider whether it would be just and convenient for that information to be so used for the purpose of enforcing or policing the freezing order.
|
In the circumstances it was not an abuse of the court process to challenge the factual findings in an earlier action as it was not manifestly unfair to the parties to the later proceedings that the same issues should be relitigated and to permit such relitigation did not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
|
Whilst the Bar Council, when considering or dealing with a prosecution in respect of a disciplinary matter, had to apply the principles of natural justice and could not act out of improper motive, malice or bad faith, that was a duty owed to all its members and did not arise out of a contract with any one individual member.
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |