Fire Damage and Statutory Duties These three reclaiming motions concern the proper construction of the Electricity Supply Regulations 1988. The pursuers contend that the regulations give them a civil right of action to recover damages in respect of alleged breaches of Regulations 17, 24 and 25. The defenders submit that no such right arises. After debate, Lord Wheatley sustained the pursuers' argument, and by interlocutor dated 18 July 2007 allowed a proof before answer in each case on ...
|
Criminal Note of Appeal Against Sentence:- The appellant was convicted after trial on indictment at Dundee Sheriff Court on charges of:- (1) being concerned in the supply of heroin contrary to section 4(3)(b) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971; (2) obstructing officers of Tayside Police in execution of their duty contrary to section 23(4)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971; and (3) being in possession of a quantity of cannabis resin contrary to section 5(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. All of t ...
|
Criminal Note of Appeal Against Conviction:- Following trial at the High Court at Paisley on 15 August 2002 the appellant was convicted of a charge of assault to severe injury and a charge of rape. On 5 September 2002, the court sentenced the appellant to twelve years imprisonment to run from 15 August 2002, in cumulo in respect of the two charges. A number of grounds of appeal against his conviction were lodged one of which was to the effect that a miscarriage of justice had occurred ...
|
Proof:- On 7 October 2007 the pursuer was driving his car on the M8 towards the Kingston Bridge in Glasgow. The pursuer slowed down to take heed of queuing traffic, and was close to stopping, when he was hit from behind by a van driven by the defender. The pursuer came to a halt and was again struck by the defender's van, pushing him into the rear of the car in front of him being driven by a Mr Cassidy which resulted in a scuff on his car’s rear bumper. The second contact between ...
|
Here a motion was made on behalf of eleven individuals who claimed to have been diagnosed with bilateral pleural plaques caused by negligent exposure to asbestos and who had actions for loss, injury and damage in process or in immediate contemplation for leave to enter the process in terms of Rule of Court 58.8(2). The motion was opposed on behalf of the petitioners on the basis that Rule of Court 58.8(2) did not apply to those persons on whose behalf the motion was made and that it was not in t ...
|
Practice and Procedure - Perversity This is an appeal against an Employment Tribunal’s judgement arguing perversity. The EAT held that, based upon the facts, no evidence of perversity and the appeal was dismissed.
|
Jurisdictional Points - Worker, employee or neither The Tribunal accepted jurisdiction in a case in which the employee who lived and worked mainly in England drove lorries for a company based in Northern Ireland. There was no evidence the company had an office in England. The Tribunal failed to give sufficient reasons why it concluded it had jurisdiction, and may have asked where the employee worked or was based rather than the appropriate, and different, question which was whether the em ...
|
Practice and Procedure - Appellate jurisdiction/Reasons/Burns-Barke This is an appeal regarding whether the Tribunal’s judgement was Meek compliant. There was a failure by the Employment Tribunal to explain why they preferred the evidence of one witness to another on a crucial factual issue. Observations of Morison P in Tchoula approved by the Court of Appeal in Anya (para 24) applied. Case remitted to fresh employment tribunal for rehearing on issue of sex discrimination.
|
Practice and Procedure - Appellate jurisdiction/Reasons/Burns-Barke Appeal in respect of the award by the Tribunal of £3,000 costs, and cross-appeal in respect of the calculation of future loss of £35,700 both allowed, because the Tribunal had failed to give any adequate explanation of these awards, and in particular how the figures were arrived at. A further point arose during the hearing before the Appeal Tribunal, as to which there appeared to be no authority – that is ...
|
Practice and Procedure - Review Claim under Disability Discrimination Act 1995 dismissed at PHR because Claimant not available to give evidence as to long-term effect of injury – Judge willing to offer adjournment if absence of Claimant had been explained and adjournment applied for – Counsel tells Judge that he does not know reason for Claimant’s absence and fails to apply for adjournment – At subsequent review hearing Claimant proves that counsel had given him express ...
|
| 1 |