This was an appeal against a Sheriff’s decision to dismiss an action in terms of Rule 15.7 of the Sheriff Court Rules, due to unfairness caused by an inordinate and inexcusable delay by the pursuer and appellant in progressing the case. In the action, which commenced on 23 September 2002, the appellant sought payment of the sum of £57,566.73 said to be remaining due to him when employed by the defenders and respondents from 2000-2002.Counsel for the appellant sought recall of the Sheriff’s inter ...
|
Parties and Background The pursuer was the bank Santander which had granted a standard security in favour of the defender, David Gallagher. This case concerned a calling up notice which the bank had attempted to serve on the defender in February 2011 in terms of section 19(1) of the Conveyancing and Feudal Reform (Scotland) Act 1970. Sheriff Officers had been instructed by the bank to serve the notice. After being unable to effect personal service, an Officer posted the notice through the lette ...
|
Parties and Background The pursuers were beneficiaries of the estate of the late Leslie Sydney Henderson. The defenders were the executors of the estate. The first defender was a solicitor and the second was an individual. The pursuers sought details of estate accounts and payments from the estate. Decree was granted in favour of the pursuers in September 2002. The defenders were instructed to produce a full account of their involvement in the estate. A full account wa ...
|
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 ...
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |