Reclaiming Motion:- Here the pursuer and respondent sought damages from the defenders and reclaimers in respect of defamation of him by them alleged to have occurred in material published on 4 January 2005. Following a procedure roll debate, the Lord Ordinary made no order in hoc statu in the action. The defenders and reclaimers submitted that the Lord Ordinary had erred in refusing to dismiss the action, as they had sought. At the start of the hearing, it was indicated by counsel for the pursue ...
|
Expenses:- These two actions related to an issue of the Daily Record published on 29 November 2005 that carried articles relating to Mr. Hutchinson and AppA. The articles were critical of the methods by which they sold therapeutic beds to elderly customers. Here the pursuers lodged, in each action, a minute of abandonment. In each case the defenders lodged a motion for expenses and an additional fee. The motion stated inter alia:- "On behalf of the defenders, in respect of the pursuer's abandonm ...
|
Defamation/Forum Non Conveniens:
As averred by the pursuer the only substantial reason as to why the case is being pursued in Scotland as opposed to England is that it would survive a limitation plea. The hearing considers the question of whether a court should send an action away to another jurisdiction in which it was bound to fail due to the operation of the law of limitation operating in that jurisdiction as opposed to possible failure on fact or merits. In addition the pursuers averments on defamation are challenged for fa ...
|
Petition for Interdict/Defamation:
Petitioners claim that the respondents engaged in a deliberate campaign aimed at injuring the the petitioners commercial reputation and trading prospects by falsely accusing the petitioners of misleading actual and potential customers by claiming that Profilit was a safety glass. The live issues are whether the respondents have made false and misleading statements containing representations to the effect that the petitioners have been deceitful duplicitous and misleading. Secondly if the respond ...
|
| 1 |