A Master Was Entitled To Have Allowed Claimants to Amend Their Particulars Of Claim
HHJ Tugendhat held that a Master had been entitled to allow Claimants in an action for false imprisonment and trespass to the persons to have amended their Particulars of Claim as he came to the case with detailed knowledge of it. There was little force in the argument from the Defendants that the Master failed to distinguish events pre-dating the index events from those post-dating it or that the amendments would increase the scope of disclosure, witness statements and costs. However under CPR ...
|
Motion for caution:- The pursuer, a party litigant, sought damages of £383,500 in respect of an injury, allegedly sustained during the course of his work for the defenders in June 2003. The pursuer averred that he was carrying two cases of juice cartons which weighed around 12 kilograms each and that as a result, he felt pain in his back which caused him loss, injury and damage. The continuing loss, injury and damage were said to include continuing acute back pain, urinary infections and de ...
|
Claimant Permitted To Serve Separate Particulars Of Claim On Different Defendants Based On Different Causes Of Action
Warren J held that a claimant who had issued claims against two defendants could serve separate Particulars of Claim on each defendant. Warren J held that the CPR, more particularly, r.7.4 and r.16.4, did not prohibit separate Particulars of Claim from being served on different defendants against whom different causes of action were relied upon. In the absence of a prohibition, there was no reason why a claimant could not serve separate Particulars of Claim on different defendants, especially in ...
|
Beatson J set aside the Master’s order substituting two new Defendants for the original Defendant after the expiry of the limitation period. As to one of the substituted Defendants, the Claimant did not have the requisite intention to sue that party at the time the claim form was issued. Although the Claimant could be said to have made a mistake as to name in respect of the other substituted party, the mistake was misleading in that it caused reasonable doubt as to the identity of the party inte ...
|
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. ...
|
Judge Could Not Unilaterally Order Defendant to Make a Payment In: The Court of Appeal held that, although delays complying with court orders could not be tolerated, a judge had acted in excess of his case management powers by ordering, of his own motion, that a defendant pay a large sum of money into court on the basis that he had failed to respond timeously to earlier court directions. The Defendant submitted that it would have such difficulty in raising the requisite sums that the judge’s imp ...
|
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 ...
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |