The Pursuer raised a small claim action for payment and the Defender stated both a defence and a counter claim. The case called in court on several times and at a continued calling the Sheriff decided to deal with the counter claim on the basis of the information available. He did not consider it necessary to hear evidence and decided to dismiss the counter claim and to allow the principal action and defence to proceed. The Defender appealed that decision to the Sheriff Principal. ...
|
In an action for recovery of possession of heritable property a Proof before Answer began in November 2001 before Sheriff Bell. Sheriff Bell retired in 2004 on medical grounds and was unfit for further duty. In these circumstances, it had to be decided whether the Sheriff who would hear the further Proof could have regard to the notes of the evidence already heard by Sheriff Bell and could continue from that point, or whether the case should be heard again from the beginning. An applic ...
|
In an action for recovery of possession of heritable property a Proof before Answer began in November 2001 before Sheriff Bell. Sheriff Bell retired in 2004 on medical grounds and was unfit for further duty. In these circumstances, it had to be decided whether the Sheriff who would hear the further Proof could have regard to the notes of the evidence already heard by Sheriff Bell and could continue from that point, or whether the case should be heard again from the beginning. An applic ...
|
The Pursuer/Appellant appealed the Sheriff’s interlocutor dismissing the action at the Options Hearing. Before the Options Hearing, the parties had agreed that the Hearing should be discharged and the case sisted for investigations. The Solicitors acting for the Defenders/Respondents agreed to instruct their local agents to appear on behalf of both parties at the Options Hearing. The local agents passed the instructions to another firm of Solicitors who appe ...
|
On 19 March the case was called before the Extra Division when the parties lodged a joint minute disposing of the action. Both parties agreed that no expenses should be found due to or by either party. Here the question arose as to whether the court should make an order against either or both of the parties of the kind made by the First Division in Billig and Anr v The Council of the Law Society of Scotland. The Extra Division remitted the case to a court of five judges to consider the competenc ...
|
A Sheriff Officer applied for an order against a third party under Section 21(11) of the Debt Arrangement and Attachment (Sc) Act 2002 to have a sum consigned into Court. The creditor, Aberdeen City Council, had obtained a summary warrant against the debtor, Rage Electronics Limited, and had instructed Sheriff Officers to execute an attachment of goods at the debtor’s premises. Before the items were uplifted from the premises, it was discovered that a significant number of the goods were n ...
|
Caution:- On 1 October 2008, the pursuers were ordered to find caution for expenses for £25,000 within 21 days "in a form to be agreed between the parties, which failing the case to be brought back to court in order that said form be decided by the court". Here the pursuers argued that caution should be given by their placing the sum of £25,000 in a joint deposit account in the names of solicitors acting for both parties pending decree or settlement. On behalf of the def ...
|
Debate-at instance of pursuers. Their plea was to the relevancy and specification of certain averments made by the first defender. Action for recovery of £1,190,921.49 from the defenders jointly and severally as a partnership, arising out of borrowings. The first defender avered that he was not in partnership. He made several averments about the third defender. He avered that the third defender had committed fraud against the pursuers by use of accounts in the names of Edmund Keane and Jimmy Jon ...
|
The Pursuers/Respondents raised proceedings against the Defender/Appellant for payment of two sums. The Pursuers adjusted their pleadings, eventually reducing the amount sued for significantly. They did not formally amend the craves, however, although they lodged a Record in which the craves reflected the reduced sum sued for. The Defender's solicitors withdrew from acting and there was no appearance by or on behalf of the Defender at the peremptory diet. The Sheriff granted Decree by defau ...
|
The Pursuer entered into a hire purchase agreement with the Defenders in relation to a car. 3 months later she signed a Trust Deed. She then raised proceedings seeking an order in terms of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, section 140B(1)(e) to set aside the duties imposed on her under the hire purchase agreement, including repayment of the sums she had paid and the return of ownership of the car to her. The Defenders counterclaimed for delivery of the car and for interdict to prevent the Pursu ...
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 |