In this action for payment, the pursuers' four craves (numbered 1-4), supported by articles of condescendence (numbered 3-6), each claimed payment of sums due in respect of contracts for road construction works carried out by the pursuers as subcontractors acting on the defenders’ instructions. This Note was prepared following a debate on the defenders’ preliminary plea to the relevancy and specification of the pursuers’ averments.It was submitted for the defenders that in respect of each of the ...
|
Parties and Background: The pursuers (and appellants) operated a nursery in Aberdeen. The defenders (and respondents) were designed as the Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care, constituted as a body corporate in terms of section 1(1) of the Regulation of Care (Scotland) Act 2001. The pursuers were required, under s.7 of the 2001 Act, to register their nursery with the defenders. In March 2008 the Commission, having concerns about the management of the nursery, served an improvemen ...
|
In this action, the pursuers sought implement of missives of sale concluded with the defenders; failing which they sought an award of damages. In the Sheriff’s interlocutor of 5 August, he found the pursuers entitled to implement and continued the case so parties could be heard on further procedure. On 19 August, before any further hearing, the defenders sought to appeal without leave. On 16 September, the Sheriff Principal refused the appeal as incompetent, on the ground that no decree ‘refusin ...
|
The pursuers were an independent primary school in Aberdeen. The defenders were a firm of architects which had been engaged to carry out alterations and extensions to the school premises. The pursuers sought damages from the defenders for breach of contract and negligence in the performance of the contract. This was an amendment hearing at which the pursuers moved to allow the record to be opened and amended. The defenders opposed the motion. In addition, they moved that, if the pursuers ...
|
This was an appeal against a Sheriff’s decision in respect of a summary application under section 39A of the Child Support Act 1991. In his judgment of 12 November 2009, the Sheriff dismissed the action and at a hearing on expenses on 26 November 2009, found no expenses due. The pursuers appealed against those interlocutors and challenged several of the Sheriff’s findings.It was submitted for the appellants that there were two substantial issues in the appeal; firstly, the point in time at which ...
|
This was an appeal against a Sheriff’s decision in respect of a summary application under section 39A of the Child Support Act 1991. On 26 November 2009, the Sheriff refused the pursuers’ motion for a warrant for arrest of the defender (in terms of Rule 5B(1)(b) of the Act of Sederunt (Child Support Rules) 1993) and ex proprio motu dismissed the case, finding no expenses due. The pursuers appealed on the grounds that the Sheriff erred in law in refusing to grant warrant for arrest, dismissing th ...
|
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 ...
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |