In 2006 the pursuers, who design and manufacture signs in Scotland, purchased from the defenders a printing machine. Since then the pursuers have not been happy with the printing machine's performance and have sought to reject the machine on the ground that it was not of satisfactory quality or fit for purpose under section 14 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979. Here the pursuers sought inter alia declarator that they were entitled to reject the printing machine. The defenders lodged defences in whic ...
|
Procedure Roll:- In this action the pursuer sought damages in respect of loss, injury and damage which the pursuer claims to have suffered due to negligence in her ante-natal care in 1994. At debate counsel for the defender invited the court to sustain the defenders' first plea in law and dismiss the action. It was submitted that there were no averments that the analysis of the sample was carried out by an employee for whose actings and omissions the defenders were responsible. The test was done ...
|
In the course of negotiating settlement of a personal injury claim, Servisair's insurers wrote to JVK's solicitors advising, "We accept that our Insured is liable for the purposes of this claim, and will pay damages, to be assessed when we receive details of the claim. We will also be paying your costs in accordance with the Civil Procedure Rules."
|
Section 75 Agreements are often integral to the grant of planning permission. Typically they will be negotiated by the developer who at the time the Section 75 Agreement falls to be signed is not the land owner. The relevant Option Agreement or missives will usually make provision for the land owner to be bound to enter into the Section 75 Agreement. This case is an interesting example of where that approach may go wrong and it is therefore of considerable interest because the app ...
|
The Pursuers raised a number of actions under the Commercial Court Rules (OCR Chapter 40) seeking to have the Defender in each case ordained to implement a contract for the purchase of heritable property. In the case of the Defender in the current action, the parties had entered into missives in which the Defender had offered to purchase a flat in a development being constructed by the Pursuers. In each case, the Pursuers also had an alternative crave for payment of damages failing implemen ...
|
The pursuer formerly worked for the defenders during which period he was exposed to asbestos and developed bilateral pleural plaques. In this action the pursuer sought damages from the defenders for his anxiety about the diagnosis and about the possibility that he might develop serious asbestos-related diseases. At common law the pursuer did not have a relevant claim for damages following on from the decision of the House of Lords in Rothwell v Chemical & Insulating Co Ltd [2008] 1 A.C. 281 ...
|
Debate:- In this action the pursuers, the proprietors of a building in Glasgow, sought damages from the defenders. In 1999 the gable wall of that building was damaged in the course of demolition works which were in progress on an adjacent building, that decision to demolish it on public safety grounds was taken by the first defenders in terms of section 13 of the Building (Scotland) Act 1959. The pursuers' case was based on negligence and nuisance against the Council and the demolition contracto ...
|
Appeal by Stated Case under section 51(11) (b) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995:- On 20 May 2008 the respondent referred the case of N M, born on 15 May 2008, to a Children's Hearing for Renfrewshire that in terms of section 52(2)(c) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 he was likely:- "(i) to suffer unnecessarily; or (ii) be impaired seriously in his health or development, due to a lack of parental care." On 28 November 2008, the sheriff, after hearing evidence, found the grounds of referral ...
|
On 12 May 2007, the pursuer was leaning into the rear nearside door of a stationary taxi in Perth when a car being driven by the defender collided with the taxi. As a result the pursuer was injured. The pursuer raised an action against the defender in which he sought damages of £500,000. The minuters defended the action on the basis that they insured the vehicle driven by the defender and the defender was not insured under the relevant policy at the time of the accident because she was driv ...
|
Application for leave to appeal against a decision of an Immigration Judge of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal under Section 103B of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002:- The appellant, an Iranian man born on 12 September 1971, entered the United Kingdom illegally on 1 February 2005 and sought asylum the following day. On 4 April 2005 the respondent decided that the appellant had not established a well-founded fear of persecution and that he did not qualify for asylum and conclud ...
|
| 1 |