Issue 133
C O N T E
N T S
|
|
Page No. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COURT OF
SESSION
PRACTICE
NOTE
No. 1 of
2010
Causes in
the Inner House
1. This Practice Note has effect from
2. The following notes are primarily designed
to explain how the new rules relating to causes in the Inner House will operate
in practice. The new rules, relating to reclaiming motions under Chapter 38,
applications for a new trial or to enter jury verdicts under Chapter 39 and
appeals from inferior courts under Chapter 40, come into force on
3. For information on the background to the
procedural changes and why they were made, practitioners may find it helpful to
refer to the Report of Lord Penrose which was issued in 2009 and is available
on the Scottish Courts Website www.scotcourts.gov.uk/innerhousereform/index.asp.
Procedural Business in
the Inner House: Chapter 37A
Rule 37A.1: Quorum of Inner House for certain business
4. One of the central aspects of Lord
Penrose’s proposals was that a single judge of the Inner House should be able
to deal with specified procedural business in the Inner House. Rule 37A.1 is
intended to reflect this by making provision regarding the quorum of a Division
of the Inner House when dealing with specified procedural business. In relation
to such procedural business as is defined in rule 37A.1, the quorum of a
Division of the Inner House is one judge.
5. Procedural business is defined as such
business as arises under—
(a) a
reclaiming motion,
(b) an
application for a new trial under section 29(1) of the Court of Session Act
1988 or an application to enter a jury verdict under section 31 of the 1988
Act, or
(c) an
appeal from an inferior court,
in each case up to and including the point at
which a procedural judge, at a procedural hearing, appoints a cause to the
Summar Roll or the Single Bills for a hearing or makes such other order as he
thinks fit to secure the expeditious disposal of the reclaiming motion,
application or appeal.
Rule 37A.2: Procedural judges in the Inner House
6. This rule makes provision for the Lord
President to nominate Inner House judges as procedural judges, before whom
proceedings in the Inner House will be brought in accordance with Chapters 38
to 40 of the Rules. It is intended that the Lord President will nominate a
number of procedural judges from the Inner House to deal with such procedural
business at any one time. However, when acting in that capacity, each
procedural judge will sit as a single judge.
7. Although specific provision is made in certain
rules for business to be dealt with and disposed of by a procedural judge, rule
37A.2(3) preserves the competency of a Division comprising three or more judges
to dispose of procedural business instead of a single procedural judge, should
such a Division consider it appropriate. Provision is also made in a number of
rules for a procedural judge to refer certain matters to a bench of three or
more judges. Such a remit might be appropriate where procedural business raises
issues of particular importance or novelty.
Chapter 38: Reclaiming
Rule 38.2: Reclaiming days
8. It should be noted that, with one
exception, the period within which an interlocutor may be reclaimed against
under rule 38.2 will be either be 14 days or 21 days after the date on which
the interlocutor was pronounced. Whether the 14 day period or the 21 day period
will apply, and whether or not leave is required, will depend on the type of
interlocutor. The exception is rule 38.2(2), which applies to a reclaiming
motion against an interlocutor which disposes of the whole merits of the cause
but reserves or does not dispose of the question of expenses. In that case, any
party to the cause who seeks an order for expenses before disposal of the
reclaiming motion must apply by motion to the Lord Ordinary for such an order
within 14 days of the date of enrolment of that reclaiming motion. A reclaiming
motion can proceed out of time under rule 38.10.
Rule 38.5: Method of reclaiming
9. Practitioners are reminded that, when
enrolling a reclaiming motion in a case in respect of which no opinion has been
issued, they should advise the depute clerk—
(a) that the reclaiming motion has been
enrolled, and
(b) that an opinion is required.
10. When enrolling a reclaiming motion where a
matter likely to be at issue at the hearing of the reclaiming motion is not
covered by an opinion already in process (e.g.
the disposal of expenses following upon the appearance of judgment)
practitioners will continue to require—
(a) to
indicate in the motion sheet the particular matter which is not so covered, and
(b) to
advise the depute clerk that an opinion is required thereon.
Rule 38.6: Effect of reclaiming
11. It should be noted that particular
provision is made in this rule in relation to reclaiming against interlocutors
dealing with expenses where a previous interlocutor has disposed of the whole
merits of the cause. Where a motion to refuse a reclaiming motion is unopposed,
the motion is to be treated as if all parties consented to it.
Rule 38.8: Appeals treated as reclaiming motions
12. This rule provides for Chapter 38 to apply
to certain appeals that are referred to in statutory and Convention provisions.
Rule 38.10: Reclaiming out of time
13. It should be noted that a procedural judge may
allow a reclaiming motion to be received outwith the reclaiming days and to
proceed out of time only in the case of mistake or inadvertence. Conditions as
to expenses are specifically referred to in this rule, but it should be noted
that the procedural judge may impose other conditions, not relating to
expenses, if allowing reclaiming out of time under this rule.
Rule 38.11: Urgent disposal of reclaiming motion
14. Where a motion for urgent disposal under
this rule is appropriate, the rule is available for the purpose of obtaining
(a) an order for an urgent date for the hearing of the reclaiming motion on the
Summar Roll or (b) determination of the reclaiming motion in the Single Bills.
The appropriate words, as specified in paragraph (1) of this rule, should be
included in the motion.
15. The reclaimer or respondent should also
include in the motion an indication of the nature of the urgency. A motion for
urgent disposal will be starred and will require the appearance of counsel or
other person having a right of audience. The procedural judge will wish to know
parties’ estimate of the duration of the hearing to determine the reclaiming
motion.
16. In granting a motion for urgent disposal, a
procedural judge may appoint the reclaiming motion to the Summar Roll for a
hearing even if all parties are of the view that it should be heard in the
Single Bills. Similarly, a procedural judge may direct that the reclaiming
motion be heard in the Single Bills even if all parties take the view that it
should be dealt with on the Summar Roll. Where a procedural judge grants the
motion for urgent disposal, this will be reflected in the timetable that is
issued and the timescales referred to in Table A to the Appendix to this Note
will be adjusted accordingly.
17. It should be noted that where a procedural
judge has granted a motion for urgent disposal, rules 38.12 (objections to
competency), 38.13 (timetable), 38.14 (sist or variation of timetable), 38.15
(failure to comply with timetable) and 38.16 (procedural hearing) will apply to
the reclaiming motion only to the extent that the procedural judge so directs.
18. Unlike the rules in force immediately prior
to
19. Parties should be aware that, when urgent
disposal of a reclaiming motion is ordered, the Keeper of the Rolls may
intimate a diet at very short notice. Parties will be expected to be in a
position to proceed with the diet that is fixed. Early warning should be given
to the Keeper of the Rolls of any circumstances which may result in the
reclaiming motion not proceeding, so that the Keeper can, if necessary, defer
allocation of an urgent diet until it is clear that such a diet is
required.
Rule 38.12: Objections to the competency of reclaiming
20. A note of objection may be lodged by a
party, and the Deputy Principal Clerk of Session may refer a question of
competency, only within 14 days after the date on which the reclaiming motion
was marked. The purpose of including such a requirement in this rule, and not
as part of the timetable, is to ensure that parties focus on the competency of
the reclaiming motion at as early a procedural stage as possible, so that the
procedural judge can then consider any competency issues before the timetable
is issued and the procedural hearing is fixed under rule 38.13. A form (Form
38.12) is provided for specifying the basis of an objection to competency.
Parties should note that a hearing will be fixed under this rule, rather than
objections to competency being dealt with on paper. It should also be noted
that notes of argument will require to be lodged in relation to the competency
issue. Where a hearing is being fixed under this rule, parties should also
provide the Keeper of the Rolls with an estimate of the duration of the
hearing.
Rule 38.13: Timetable in reclaiming motion
21. This rule provides for the issue of a
timetable and the fixing of a procedural hearing in a reclaiming motion. These
measures form the core aspects of the reforms to Inner House procedure arising
from Lord Penrose’s Report. In relation to the carrying out of certain
procedural steps leading up to the issuing of the timetable, some specific
periods are set out in the rules. However, to a significant extent, the periods
to be followed, so far as possible and subject to any motions for urgent
disposal under rule 38.11, will from time to time be prescribed by the Lord
President. Table A in the Appendix to this Note incorporates the periods which,
as at the date of issuing this Practice Note, it is envisaged will be so
prescribed.
22. Any questions of competency should have
been dealt with by the time the Keeper issues the timetable and fixes the
procedural hearing under this rule. This is reflected by the requirement for
the Keeper to take those steps within 7 days of—
(a) the
expiry of the period within which an objection to competency or a reference by
the Deputy Principal Clerk on competency could have been, but was not, made
under rule 38.12, or
(b) where
such an objection or reference was made, the reclaiming motion having been
found to be competent or the question of competency having been reserved, as
referred to in rule 38.12.
23. A party who is concerned that a step of
procedure has not been complied with timeously, or that a party is not
complying with the spirit of the procedures, and that failure is threatening to
cause delay to or prejudice the expeditious disposal of the cause, should:
● if the matter relates to a stage in the
timetable, approach the Keeper of the Rolls with a view to having the case put
out for a hearing before a procedural judge, or enrol a motion as mentioned in
rule 38.15(1), or
● if the matter is outwith the control of
the timetable, enrol a motion to bring it before a procedural judge.
Rule 38.14: Sist or variation of timetable in reclaiming
motion
24. A motion to vary the timetable should give
full details of the grounds on which the motion is based and, where relevant, be
accompanied by appropriate evidence. Any such motion should be made as soon as
possible after the timetable has been issued. Variation of the timetable may be
by either extension or acceleration.
25. A motion may be for sist alone, for
variation of the timetable alone or for both sist and variation of the
timetable. It is a matter for the procedural judge to determine the length of
any sist of the reclaiming motion, but parties are reminded that procedural
judges will seek to avoid any unnecessary delay in carrying out the procedural
steps set out in the timetable. It should be noted that motions for sist or for
variation of the timetable will not be granted, even if made of consent, unless
sufficient information to justify them is placed before the procedural judge.
Any party opposing such an application will be required to demonstrate that
their opposition is well founded.
26. It should be noted that a motion to sist
and/or vary the timetable in a reclaiming motion may only be granted on special
cause shown. It is a matter for the procedural judge to determine, in the
particular circumstances of a case, whether or not special cause has been
shown. Special cause might arise for example, where there is a need for a party
to obtain transcripts of evidence or to obtain legal aid, or where it is
necessary to obtain an opinion of the Lord Ordinary. Motions to sist and/or
vary the timetable will be starred if there is objection to them or if the
material placed before the procedural judge does not satisfy the requirement
that special cause be shown.
27. The Court will expect parties to consider
at the earliest possible stage whether they may require to make an application
to the Scottish Legal Aid Board in respect of the reclaiming motion. Delay in
making an application for legal aid or in applying for a sist may lead to a
motion under this rule being refused. Generally, the Court will expect parties
to adhere to guidance issued by the Scottish Legal Aid Board. Parties are
reminded that the Board may make legal aid available for specially urgent work
undertaken before a legal aid application is determined. Making an application
to the Board under the special urgency procedure may obviate the need for the
timetable to be varied or for the reclaiming motion to be sisted under this
rule. Further information can be obtained in the Chapter entitled “Special
Urgency” in the Civil Legal Aid Handbook:
http://www.slab.org.uk/profession/handbook/Civil%20handbook/wwhelp/wwhimpl/js/html/wwhelp.htm
Rule 38.15: Failure to comply with timetable in reclaiming
motion
28. The purpose of this rule is to provide for
discipline to ensure effective supervision of the management of cases under the
timetable.
Rule 38.16: Procedural hearing in reclaiming motion
29. The procedural hearing is an important
aspect of the procedure under the Chapter and will follow on completion of the
other procedural steps mentioned in the timetable. It is intended to be the
final procedural matter to be dealt with by the procedural judge. The primary
purpose of the procedural hearing is to make sure that no case is sent for a
hearing on its merits unless the procedural judge is satisfied that a hearing
is necessary and that the parties are prepared for it.
30. At the procedural hearing, parties will be
expected to be in a position to discuss the issues involved in the reclaiming
motion and the method of disposing of them. Parties should address the
procedural judge on their state of preparation, and estimate the length of any
hearing on the Summar Roll or in the Single Bills which may be required to
dispose of the reclaiming motion. The procedural judge will decide the length
of any such hearing, and when it is to take place.
31. Parties will be expected to arrange that
counsel, or other persons having rights of audience responsible for the conduct
of the case, and authorised to take any necessary decision on questions of both
substance and procedure, are available and appear at any hearing in the Inner
House, including a procedural hearing and any other hearings before a
procedural judge. Ensuring continuity of representation in relation to both
procedural and substantive hearings will be an important factor in seeking to
avoid late settlements and the discharge of hearings under the new
procedures. Counsel should also have (or
have access to) their diaries at the procedural hearing, so that the court can
fix the date of any further procedural or substantive hearing which may be
required.
32. It is important that continued procedural
hearings are avoided unless they are genuinely necessary. Where it emerges at a
procedural hearing that further steps require to be taken, the parties will be
provided with an interlocutor specifying those steps and the time within which
they must be taken. In the event that any difficulty then arises, the parties
should communicate with the court by email (or otherwise), confirming whether
the steps have been carried out (and if not, why not), whether further time is
required (and if so, why), and whether a further hearing is genuinely required
(rather than, for example, the court’s making any necessary order on the basis
of an unstarred motion).
Rule 38.17: Amendment of pleadings in reclaiming motion
33. The Court will expect parties to give
consideration at the earliest possible stage after the reclaiming motion has
been marked as to whether or not it is necessary for a motion to be made to have
the pleadings amended in terms of a minute of amendment and answers. Wherever
possible, such a motion should be made before the procedural hearing so that a
procedural judge can consider the matter.
Rule 38.18: Grounds of appeal in reclaiming motion
34. This rule sets out requirements relating to
grounds of appeal. Wherever possible, parties should make any motions to amend
grounds of appeal or answers, on cause shown, before the procedural hearing so
that a procedural judge can consider the matter. Where a motion is made for an
amendment to the grounds or answers, the same motion should include any
necessary motion for sist and/or variation of the timetable under rule
38.14(1).
Rule 38.19: Lodging of appendices in reclaiming motion
35. The timing of the lodging of appendices is
a matter which will be controlled by the timetable and, therefore, by the
procedural judge. The reclaimer shall lodge an appendix to the reclaiming print
unless intimation is given by the reclaimer that he does not consider it necessary
to do so. If such intimation is given by the reclaimer, a respondent can make a
motion to the procedural judge for an order requiring the reclaimer to lodge an
appendix. Where such a motion is refused, a respondent can seek to lodge an
appendix containing documents which the reclaimer has confirmed he does not
intend to include in an appendix.
Chapter 39: Applications
for new trial or to enter jury verdicts
Rule 39.1: Applications for new trial
36. The terms of rule 39.1 broadly remain the
same as the equivalent rule that was in force prior to
Rule 39.3: Objections to the competency of application
37. The procedure set out in this rule for
objecting to the competency of an application for a new trial is similar to the
procedure set out for objecting to a reclaiming motion under rule 38.12.
However, there are two main differences. The first is that a note of objection
may only be lodged within the period of 7 days after the application for a new
trial was made. This reflects the shorter period within which such an
application may be made under rule 39.1, when compared to the time allowed for
making a reclaiming motion under Chapter 38. In addition, the rule does not
contain an equivalent to rule 38.12(2), under which provision is made for the
Deputy Principal Clerk of Session to refer questions of competency to a
procedural judge.
Rule 39.4: Timetable in application for a new trial
38. This rule provides for the issue of a
timetable and the fixing of a procedural hearing in an application for a new
trial. Chapter 39 sets out time limits prior to the issuing of the timetable,
including the period for lodging objections to the competency of the
application. However, other timescales which will apply under the timetable are
from time to time to be prescribed by the Lord President. Table B in the
Appendix to this Note incorporates the periods which, as at the date of issuing
this Practice Note, it is envisaged will be so prescribed.
39. It should be noted that the three
procedural steps mentioned in rule 39.4(2) prior to the procedural hearing are
the lodging of appendices or the giving of notice that the applicant does not
intend to lodge an appendix, the lodging of notes of argument and the lodging
of estimates of the length of any hearing required to dispose of the
application for a new trial. In relation to the lodging of appendices, the
effect of rule 39.8 should be noted. Paragraph 35 of these notes applies, with
appropriate modification, to the lodging of appendices in applications for a
new trial as it applies to the lodging of appendices in reclaiming motions.
Rule 39.5: Sist or variation of timetable in application for
a new trial
40. The points made at paragraphs 24 to 27 of
these notes, in the context of a sist or variation of the timetable in a
reclaiming motion, should be similarly considered in the context of the
application of this rule.
Rule 39.6: Failure to comply with timetable in application
for a new trial
41. The purpose of this rule is to provide for
discipline to ensure effective supervision of the management of cases under the
timetable.
Rule 39.7: Procedural hearing in application for a new trial
42. The points made at paragraphs 29 to 32 of
these notes apply, with appropriate modification, to procedural hearings in
applications for a new trial.
Rule 39.9: Applications to enter jury verdict
43. The terms of this rule are similar to the
equivalent rule relating to applications to enter a jury verdict that was in
force immediately prior to
Chapter 40: Appeals from
Inferior Courts
Rule 40.2: Applications for leave to appeal from inferior
court
44. The terms of this rule are the same as the
equivalent rule on applications for leave to appeal from an inferior court that
was in force immediately prior to
Rule 40.4: Time and method of appeal
45. The default timescale and the method for
making an appeal under this rule are the same as those provided for under the
equivalent rule that was in force immediately before
Rule 40.8: Sist of process of appeal
46. A sist of process under this rule stops the
period of days mentioned in rule 40.7(2) from running. The practical effect is
to postpone the requirement for the appellant to lodge a process and an appeal
print and to intimate the appeal print. The appellant therefore does not have
to incur the cost of lodging and intimating during such time as there is a sist
of process.
47. This rule therefore prescribes a procedure
that is specifically related to the circumstances in which an appellant
requires to lodge an appeal process from an inferior court. For that reason,
the rule appears only in Chapter 40 and it is placed immediately after rule
40.7. As rule 40.7 makes provision only for the appellant to lodge and intimate
a process and appeal print etc., rule 40.8 provides only for the appellant to apply
for a sist of process. Rule 40.8(4) makes it clear that the provisions in rule
40.8 are without prejudice to the power of the court to sist an appeal, as
mentioned in rule 40.12.
Rule 40.9: Urgent disposal of appeal
48. Where a motion for urgent disposal under
this rule is appropriate, the rule is available for the purpose of obtaining
(a) an order for an urgent date for the hearing of the appeal on the Summar
Roll or (b) determination of the appeal in the Single Bills. An appropriate
indication of the option sought, as specified in paragraphs (1) and (2) of this
rule, should be provided.
49. The reclaimer or respondent should also
include in the motion an indication of the nature of the urgency. A motion for
urgent disposal will be starred and will require the appearance of counsel or
other person having a right of audience. The procedural judge will wish to know
parties’ estimate of the duration of the hearing to determine the reclaiming
motion.
50. In granting a motion for urgent disposal, a
procedural judge may appoint the appeal to the Summar Roll for a hearing even
if all parties are of the view that it should be heard in the Single Bills.
Similarly, a procedural judge may direct that the appeal be heard in the Single
Bills even if all parties take the view that it should be dealt with on the
Summar Roll. Where a procedural judge grants the motion for urgent disposal,
this will be reflected in the timetable that is issued and the timescales
referred to in Table C to the Appendix to this Note will be adjusted
accordingly.
51. Where a procedural judge has granted a
motion for urgent disposal, rules 40.10 (objections to competency), 40.11
(timetable), 40.12 (sist or variation of timetable), 40.13 (failure to comply
with timetable), and 40.14 (procedural hearing) will apply to the appeal only
to the extent that the procedural judge so directs.
Rule 40.10: Objections to competency of appeal
52. This rule is similar in effect to rule
38.12 (objections to the competency of reclaiming). Again, the purpose of
including provision for the lodging of a note of objection within a specified
period of time is to ensure, as far as possible, that the parties focus on the
competency of the appeal at as early a procedural stage as possible and before
the timetable is issued.
Rule 40.11: Timetable in appeal from inferior court
53. This rule provides for the issue of a
timetable and the fixing of a procedural hearing in an appeal from an inferior
court. The rule is similar in effect to rule 38.13 (timetable in reclaiming
motion). Table C in the Appendix to this Note incorporates the relevant periods
which, as at the date of issuing this Practice Note, it is envisaged will be
prescribed by the Lord President. Paragraphs 21 to 23 of these notes apply
equally to appeals under Chapter 40, subject to the modification that, in that
case, the reference in paragraph 21 to rule 38.11 and Table A should be read as
references respectively to rule 40.9 and Table C, the references in paragraph
22 to rule 38.12 should be read as references to rule 40.10 and the reference
in paragraph 23 to rule 38.15(1) should be read as a reference to rule
40.13(1).
Rule 40.12: Sist or variation of timetable in appeal from
inferior court
54. This rule is similar to rule 38.13 (sist or
variation of timetable in reclaiming motion). The points made at paragraphs 24
to 27 of these notes can be applied, with appropriate modification, to the
operation of rule 40.12. In the context of this rule, special cause might
arise, for example, in cases where there is a need for a party to obtain
transcripts of evidence or to obtain legal aid, or where it is necessary to
obtain a note from the inferior court.
Rule 40.13: Failure to comply with timetable in appeal from
inferior court
55. The purpose of this rule is to provide for
discipline to ensure effective supervision of the management of cases under the
timetable.
Rule 40.14: Procedural hearing in appeal from inferior court
56. The points made at paragraphs 29 to 32 of
this Practice Note apply, with appropriate modification, to procedural hearings
in appeals dealt with under Chapter 40.
Rule 40.15: Appeals deemed abandoned
57. The rules on appeals deemed to be abandoned
(rule 40.15) and on reponing against deemed abandonment (rule 40.16) are essentially unchanged from the equivalent rules which
were in force immediately prior to
Rule 40.17: Amendment of pleadings in appeals
58. The Court will expect parties to give
consideration at the earliest possible stage after the appeal has been marked
as to whether or not it is necessary for a motion to be made to have the
pleadings amended in terms of a minute of amendment and answers. Wherever
possible, such a motion should be made before the procedural hearing so that a
procedural judge can consider the matter.
Rule 40.18: Grounds of appeal
59. Wherever possible, parties should make any
motions to amend grounds of appeal or answers, on cause shown, before the
procedural hearing so that a procedural judge can consider the matter. Where a
motion is made for an amendment to the grounds or answers, the same motion
should include any necessary motion for sist and/or variation of the timetable
under rule 40.12(1).
Rule 40.19: Lodging of appendices in appeals
60. The timing of the lodging of appendices is
a matter which will be controlled by the timetable and, therefore, by the
procedural judge. The appellant shall lodge an appendix to the reclaiming print
unless intimation is given by the appellant that he or she does not consider it
necessary to do so. If such intimation is given by the appellant, a respondent
can make a motion to the procedural judge for an order requiring the appellant
to lodge an appendix. Where such a motion is refused, a respondent can seek to
lodge an appendix containing documents which the appellant has confirmed he or
she does not intend to include in an appendix.
General
61. Parties are expected to arrange that
counsel, or solicitors having rights of audience responsible for the conduct of
the case, and authorised to take any necessary decision on questions of both
substance and procedure, are available and appear at any hearing in the Inner
House, including a procedural hearing and any other hearings before a
procedural judge.
Notes of argument
62. One of the purposes of the timetable
procedure in Inner House cases is that it should enable the procedural judge to
ensure that parties produce detailed notes of argument at an early stage in the
proceedings. It is intended that this should help the procedural judge to make
an informed and realistic estimate of the time required for hearing each
reclaiming motion, application or appeal, as the case may be. Where a note of
argument has already been lodged and a party subsequently becomes aware that an
argument included in the note will no longer be insisted upon, that party
should inform the court of that fact at the earliest opportunity. The
appropriate form of a note of argument will depend on the circumstances. It
should however comply with the following general principles:
1. It should summarise the party’s
submissions in relation to each of the issues.
2. It should cite the main authorities
relied on. It will be helpful if they are attached or set out in an
accompanying folder.
3. Where transcripts of evidence or other
documents are to be referred to, the note of argument should identify the
relevant passages and provide an estimate of the time that the documents will
take to read.
4. It should be as brief as the issues
allow, and not normally more than 20 A4 pages (double-spaced).
5. It should be divided into numbered
paragraphs and paged consecutively.
6. Formality should be avoided.
Understandable abbreviations are acceptable.
Communication where causes are not to proceed
63. Parties are reminded that those involved in
litigation have an obligation to take reasonable care to avoid situations where
court time would be wasted. In cases where it becomes clear to a party or their
legal advisers that there is doubt as to whether a reclaiming motion, application
or appeal would proceed in the Inner House, that fact should immediately be
communicated to the Keeper of the Rolls.
64. Practice Notes No. 7 of 1991 (reclaiming
motions) and No. 1 of 1995 (early disposal of reclaiming motions and appeals)
are hereby revoked.
A.C.
Lord
President
APPENDIX
TABLE A – RECLAIMING MOTIONS
|
Stage in
proceedings |
Date |
|
Timetable issued and diet for procedural hearing
allocated (rule 38.13(1)(a) and (b)) |
|
|
Grounds of appeal to be lodged (rule
38.13(2)(a)) |
Within 28 days after issue of timetable |
|
Any answers to grounds of appeal to be lodged
(rule 38.13(2)(a)) |
Within 28 days after expiry of period for lodging
grounds of appeal |
|
Any appendices to be lodged (or
intimation that no appendices are to
be lodged) (rule 38.13(2)(b)) |
At least 7 days prior to procedural hearing |
|
Notes of argument to be lodged (rule
38.13(2)(c)) |
At least 7 days prior to procedural hearing |
|
Lodging of estimate of length of any hearing
on the Summar Roll or in the Single Bills (rule 38.13(2)(d)) |
At least 7 days prior to procedural hearing |
TABLE B – APPLICATIONS FOR A NEW TRIAL
|
Stage in
proceedings |
Date |
|
Timetable issued and diet for procedural
hearing allocated (rule 39.4(1)(a) and (b) |
|
|
Any appendices to be lodged (or intimation
that no appendices are to be lodged) (rule 39.4(2)(a)) |
At least 7 days prior to procedural hearing |
|
Any notes of argument to be lodged (rule
39.4(2)(b)) |
At least 7 days prior to the procedural
hearing |
|
Lodging of estimate of the length of any hearing
required to dispose of the application (rule 39.4(2)(c)) |
At least 7 days prior to the procedural
hearing |
TABLE C – APPEALS FROM INFERIOR COURTS
|
Stage in
proceedings |
Date |
|
Timetable issued and diet for procedural hearing
allocated (rule 40.11(1)(a) and (b)) |
|
|
Grounds of appeal to be lodged (rule
40.11(2)(d)) |
Within 28 days after issue of timetable |
|
Any answers to grounds of appeal to be lodged
(rule 40.11(2)(d)) |
Within 28 days after expiry of period for lodging
grounds of appeal |
|
Any appendices to be lodged (or intimation
that no appendices are to be lodged) (rule 40.11(2)(e)) |
At least 7 days prior to procedural hearing |
|
Notes of argument to be lodged (rule
40.11(2)(f)) |
At least 7 days prior to procedural hearing |
|
Lodging of estimate of the length of any
hearing on the Summar Roll or in the Single Bills (rule 40.11(2)(g) |
At least 7 days prior to procedural hearing |
N O T I C E
Agents in the undernoted cases are requested to attend at the Keeper of
the Rolls office with a view to arranging fixed diets of proof.
|
1 |
A103/09
William Hendry v Grampian Health Board |
Drummond
Miller |
RF
Macdonald |
|
N O T I C E
Agents in the undernoted cases are requested to attend at the Keeper of
the Rolls office with a view to arranging summar roll hearings
|
1 |
A2710/08
Jessamine Gow (AP) v Angus Grant (AP) |
Hughes
Walker |
Allan
McDougall |
|
_______________
The
following motions were granted, unopposed, on
|
A151/08
Kirstie |
Balfour
+ Manson LLP |
|
|
A61/10
Bank of Scotland Plc v Commissioners of HM Revenue & Customs |
HM
Revenue & Customs |
|
|
A63/10
Capital Bank Asset Finance v HM Revenue & Customs |
HM
Revenue & Customs |
|
|
A477/09
Andrew Cumming v NHS Highland |
Russel
& Aitken |
|
|
A706/09
Dundee City Council v Atkins Consultants Ltd, t/a Atkins Water |
Brodies
LLP |
|
|
A62/10
HBOS Plc v The Commissioners of HM Revenue & Customs |
HM
Revenue & Customs |
|
|
A65/10
Lloyds Banking Group Plc v HM Revenue & Customs |
HM
Revenue & Customs |
|
|
A64/10
NWS Trust Ltd v The Commissioners of HM Revenue & Customs |
HM
Revenue & Customs |
|
|
PD164/10
Alexander Anderson v East Lothian Council |
Ledingham
Chalmers |
|
|
PD862/09
Rebecca Anderson v Southern Cross Healthcare Ltd |
Digby
Brown |
|
|
PD2225/09
Jacqueline Barbour v Glasgow City Council |
Brodies
LLP |
|
|
PD37/10
Anne-Marie Carlin &c v |
Simpson
& Marwick |
|
|
PD1487/08
Colin Davie v Diageo Scotland Ltd |
Digby
Brown |
|
|
PD160/10
Terrina Dickson v Zurich Insurance Plc |
Simpson
& Marwick |
|
|
PD2736/09
Fiona Kilpatrick v Aloi Motor & General Insurance |
Thompsons |
|
|
PD1627/09
Graham Mackay v RBG Ltd &c |
Digby
Brown |
|
|
PD2419/09
Kirsty McDonald v Perwaiz Khan &c |
Digby
Brown |
|
|
PD52/10
Alan McGraw v Viridor Waste Management Ltd |
HBM
Sayers |
|
|
PD1206/09
James McKay v Helmet Integrated Systems Ltd |
Simpson
& Marwick |
|
|
PD2424/09
David Neil v Francis Blake &c |
|
|
|
PD772/09
Catherine O’Donnell v A S Group ( |
HBM
Sayers, Glasgow |
|
|
PD2541/09
James O’Neill v Brinks Ltd |
Simpson
& Marwick |
|
|
PD296/09
John Pauley v Independent Leisure Concepts Ltd |
Balfour
+ Manson LLP |
|
|
PD1401/09
Gary Skelly v Muirfield (Contracts) Ltd |
HBM
Sayers, Glasgow |
|
|
PD1945/09
Fiona Sutherland v Buzzy Wares Ltd |
HBM
Sayers, Glasgow |
|
|
PD30/10 Claire Suttie v UK Insurance Ltd |
Harper Macleod |
|
|
PD2411/09
James Thompson v Hoval Ltd &c |
bto |
|
|
PD1928/09
Gordon Williams v Andrew Boyle &c |
Digby
Brown |
|
|
A82/05
Stephen Findleton v Quarriers |
Simpson
& Marwick |
|
|
PD478/07
Donald Allen v Ravenhill Farm Services Ltd |
Allan
McDougall |
|
|
PD1920/09
Pamela Barker v Susan Wright |
HBJ
Claims Solutions ( |
|
|
PD2758/09
Anne Bradshaw v Eliguisz Karpinski |
HBJ
Claims Solutions ( |
|
|
PD2284/09
Graeme Buchan v Sparrows Offshore Services Ltd &c |
Balfour
+ Manson LLP |
|
|
PD2221/09
William Colraine v Advocate General for |
Thompsons |
|
|
PD2285/09
Alexander Cruden v Sparrows Offshore Services Ltd &c |
Balfour
+ Manson LLP |
|
|
PD93/09
Shona Foreman v Tesco Stores Ltd |
Thompsons |
|
|
PD416/09
Colin Henderson v Caledonia Community Leisure Ltd |
Russell
Jones & Walker |
|
|
PD989/09
Alan Hughes v Maintenance & Property Care Ltd |
Simpson
& Marwick |
|
|
PD356/09
Joseph Robertson v Petrofac Training Holdings Ltd |
Lefevre
Litigation |
|
|
A290/06
Hopemangreen Builtmore Ltd v Warners |
bto |
|
|
A355/09
Rosehazel Ltd v New City Vision (Gartloch) Ltd &c |
HBJ
Gateley Wareing ( |
|
|
PD1931/09
Noelle Bracewell &c v John Boult |
|
|
|
PD1472/09
Isabella Brown v James Brodie |
|
|
|
PD2731/09
Alexander Clyne v Barclay Curle Ltd &c |
Thompsons |
|
|
PD1000/08
Robert Dick v |
Russel
& Aitken |
|
|
PD2457/09
Mary Dunne &c v Fairfield Shipbuilding & Engineering |
Simpson
& Marwick |
|
|
PD2399/09
John Fowler v William Hartley |
Digby
Brown |
|
|
PD1591/09
Duncan Mackay v Scott Christy |
|
|
|
PD719/09
Gerald McConologue v Dunne Building & Civil Engineering |
Allan
McDougall |
|
|
PD2978/09
Derek McDowell v West Lothian Council |
Digby
Brown |
|
|
PD1167/07
Ann McFadden v |
Biggart
Baillie |
|
|
PD1408/09
Walter Mitchell &c v Barry McLean |
bto |
|
_______________
CALLING
LIST
Thursday 11th
March
|
1 |
Rosemary Marion Allan, |
Lefevre Litigation |
|
2 |
BNP Paribas Securities Services Trust Co (Jersey)
Ltd, Liberte House, 19-23 La Motte Street, St Helier, Jersey &c AG ECG
Building Maintenance Ltd, t/a ECG Facilities Services, 11 First Road,
Blantyre Industrial Estate, Blantyre, Glasgow |
HBM Sayers |
|
3 |
Thomas Brown, |
Digby Brown |
|
4 |
Grizel Fraser Clinton, 13 St Peters Court,
Inverkeithing AG Strathclyde Partnership for Transport, Consort House, |
Thompsons |
|
5 |
Brian Kerr Dawson, 51 Raeburn Heights,
Glenrothes, |
Lawford Kidd |
|
6 |
June Devine, |
Thompsons |
|
7 |
Esure Services Ltd, t/a |
Simpson & Marwick |
|
8 |
James Moffat Ferguson, |
Lawford Kidd |
|
9 |
Susan Elizabeth Gardner, 98 Tarvit Drive,
Cupar, Fife AG Warren George Mackay, 16 Fortharfield, Freuchie, |
HBJ Claim Solutions LLP |
|
10 |
Green Island Organics Ltd, Marine Park,
Vidlin, Mainland, Shetland AG QBE Insurance ( |
Balfour + Manson LLP |
|
11 |
John Heaney, 1 Gleneagle Court, Whitburn AG
Mhari-Clare Johnston, |
Digby Brown |
|
12 |
Angela Henderson, 83 Oxgangs Terrace,
Edinburgh AG Greggs Plc, Fernwood House, |
Thompsons |
|
13 |
Peter Holloran, |
HBM Sayers |
|
14 |
Gordon Hynd, 28 Arthur Place, Cowdenbeath, Fife
AG Hayley Group Plc, t/a Hayley Scotland, 9 Carlyle Avenue, Hillington
Industrial Estate, Glasgow |
Digby Brown |
|
15 |
Alan Jansch, |
|
|
16 |
John Lamb, May Cottage, |
Thompsons |
|
17 |
James O’Hara, 62 Newdykes Road, Kirkintilloch,
Glasgow AG Bowmer and Kirkland Ltd, High Edge Court, Church Street Heage, Nr
Belper &c |
Digby Brown |
|
18 |
Paul Robson, 2 Worsley Crescent, Newton
Mearns, Glasgow AG Przemysklaw Lukasz Pojda, Flat 11/2, 60 Kingsway
Court, Glasgow |
Digby Brown |
|
19 |
John Service, 22 Culanlon, Drumnadrochit,
Inverness-shire AG Highland Council, |
Lefevre Litigation |
|
20 |
Angela Shanks, Welfare Attorney of Liam O’Malley,
2 Almond View, Seafield, Bathgate AG Brendan Dwyer, 75 Ambrose Rise, |
|
|
21 |
Robert Hawthorne Wales, 50 Inglewood Street,
Craigshill, Livingston, West Lothian AG Cape Building Products Ltd, Cape
House, 3 Red Hall Avenue, Paragon Business Village, Wakefield, West Yorkshire |
|
|
22 |
Janet Blackwood Whyte, The Garden Shop, Saint
Blaines, Lochearnhead AG Chartis Insurance UK Ltd, The Chartis Building, 58
Fenchurch Street, London |
Digby Brown |
_______________
Divorce Decree Granted
under Simplified Procedure on
|
1 |
Robert Whiteley v Pamela Whiteley |
|
2 |
Jane Barrett v Terence Barrett |
_______________
SINGLE
BILLS
EXTRA
DIVISION
|
1 |
Scottish Ministers against decision of the
Scottish Information Comm |
M Sinclair |
|
|
UNSTARRED
MOTION
|
1 |
John Montague v Douglas Ainsworth &c |
|
|
|
PETITION
DEPARTMENT
UNSTARRED
MOTION
|
1 |
Pet:
Bosteyo Shariff for judicial review |
Drummond Miller |
|
|
LORD
GLENNIE
PETITION
DEPARTMENT
UNSTARRED
MOTION
|
1 |
Pet:
DCS FFS Ltd to extend administration |
|
|
|
LORD UIST
PETITION DEPARTMENT
UNSTARRED
MOTION
|
1 |
Pet:
Hamlaoui Selama for judicial review |
Drummond Miller |
|
|
LORD
WOOLMAN
Friday 12th
March
Advising
(No
appearance of Counsel necessary)
PH v JK or H
Maclay Murray &
Spens - Mowat Hall Dick
LADY
STACEY
UNSTARRED
MOTION
|
1 |
Sovereign Dimensional Survey Ltd v Martin
Cooper &c |
Beveridge & Kellas |
|
|
LORD
STARRED
MOTIONS
|
30mins |
Kirstie Anderson v DRS GB Morrison &c |
MDDUS |
RF Macdonald |
|
|
30mins |
Valerie Bryson v Vion Food Group Ltd |
Allan McDougall |
Simpson & Marwick |
|
|
30mins |
Francis Edgar v Nationwide Building Society |
Bonar Mackenzie |
Morton Fraser |
|
|
30mins |
Iain Kirkwood v Aberdeen Fabrication Ltd |
McGrigors |
|
|
|
30mins |
Lynda Wright v Devro Plc |
Simpson & Marwick |
|
|
|
20mins |
Iain Kirkwood v Aberdeen Fabrication Ltd |
McGrigors |
|
|
|
20mins |
Angela McFadden v Mark McFadden |
Simpson & Marwick |
|
|
CONTINUED
MOTION
|
1 |
Alan Law v Frank Ronald |
Digby Brown |
|
|
_______________
OUTER HOUSE ROLL
LORD MENZIES - D. Bruton, Clerk
Thursday 18th and Friday 19th
March
Debate
At
|
1 |
CA135/09 William Grant
& Sons Limited &c v Mercer Ltd |
McGrigors LLP |
Tods Murray |
|
LORD HODGE - L. McNamara, Clerk
Tuesday 16th March
By Order
Between 9.00 and
|
1 |
CA116/09 Sollich KG v
Johnstone’s Just Desserts Limited |
|
Harper Macleod |
|
By Order
Between 9.15 and
|
1 |
CA175/09 MacIntyre House
Limited v Maritsan Developments Limited |
Biggart Baillie |
Semple Fraser |
|
By Order
Between 9.30 and
|
1 |
CA65/09 Dr Yassir Aljubouri
v Dr Fraser Caldwell Stewart |
Drummond Miller |
Maclay Murray & Spens |
|
|
2 |
CA11/09 Baillie Estates Ltd v Du Pont (UK) Ltd |
Morton Fraser |
McGrigors LLP |
|
Debate
At
|
1 |
CA96/09 Walter Mitchell v
Great Lakes Reinsurance (UK) Plc |
Lefevre Litigation |
Burness LLP |
|
Wednesday 17th March
Preliminary Hearing
Between
|
1 |
CA162/08 John Deyburgh v
Scotts Media Ltd |
Paul & Williamsons LLP |
HBJ Gateley Wareing ( |
|
Preliminary Hearing
Between
|
1 |
CA111/09 East Dunbartonshire
Council v Gladedale (Northern Division) Limited |
Shepherd & Wedderburn |
Maclay Murray & Spens |
|
Thursday 18th March
Starred Motion
At
|
1 |
P1297/08 Pet; G Frost RE:
Property United Ltd |
Maclay Murray & Spens |
Russel & Aitken, WS |
Gillespie McAndrew |
LORD GLENNIE - D.J. Morrison, Clerk
Monday 15th March
By Order
Between
|
1 |
CA38/09 Cansco Greig
Engineering Limited v Michael Loggie |
Bonar Mackenzie |
Bryan Keenan & Co |
|
|
2 |
P1209/09 Pet: M Loggie for Orders Under section 994 &
996 Companies Act 2006 |
HBJ Gateley Wareing ( |
Bonar Mackenzie |
|
Monday 15th March and 4 ensuing days
Hearing
At
|
1 |
P669/06 Note: J Reid RE:
Arakin Ltd |
McGrigors Solicitors LLP |
Party |
Party |
Tuesday 16th March
Preliminary Hearing
Between
|
1 |
CA180/09 Venture Drilling
AS v Larsen Oil and Gas Limited &c |
Burness LLP |
Maclay Murray & Spens |
|
Procedural Hearing
Between
|
1 |
CA86/08 Morgan Utilities
Ltd v Scottish Water Solutions Ltd |
Pinsent Masons |
|
|
Wednesday 17th March
Procedural Hearing
Between
|
1 |
CA53/08 Dunedin Canmore Housing
v The Quadrant (Edin) Ltd |
Archibald Campbell &
Harley WS |
Simpson & Marwick |
|
By Order
Between
|
1 |
CA41/08 Scott Semple &c
v Stephen Mabbott Ltd &c |
Maclay Murray & Spens |
Trainor Alston |
|
Thursday 18th March
By Order
Between
|
1 |
CA124/08 Response Handling
Ltd v Holland House Property Investments |
|
Semple Fraser |
|
Friday 19th March
Continued Preliminary Hearing
Between
|
1 |
CA98/08 Groveway Properties
Ltd v Menzies Distribution Ltd |
Paull & Williamsons LLP |
Biggart Baillie |
|
Procedural Hearing
Between
|
1 |
CA184/09 Barbara Stanczyk v
Stefan Cross t/a Stefan Cross Solicitors |
Digby Brown |
Balfour + Manson LLP |
|
LORD UIST - P. Weir, Clerk
Thursday 18th March
By Order
|
1 |
F47/07 Meena Fairley v Alan
Fairley |
Sheehan Kelsey Oswald |
|
|
LORD WOOLMAN - C. Scott, Clerk
Wednesday 17th March
By Order (Adjustment)
|
1 |
A666/09 Gavin Taylor v UK
Insurance Limited |
Thompsons |
Harper Macleod |
|
Thursday 18th March
PERSONAL INJURY ACTIONS
Cases calling by order in terms of Rules
of Court 43.7(1)(b)
|
1 |
PD1907/09 David Purves v
John McDonald &c |
|
Brodies LLP |
|
|
2 |
PD870/09 William Smith v
Michael Thomson |
Digby Brown |
|
|
|
3 |
PD826/09 Bernard McNeill v
GB Oils Limited |
Allan McDougall & Co |
bto |
|
By Order
|
1 |
PD826/09 Bernard McNeill v
EB Oils Ltd |
Allan McDougall |
bto |
|
Friday 19th March
By Order
|
1 |
A563/05 John & Fiona
Clarke v Archibald & Dorothy Grant |
Russel & Aitken |
Brodies |
|
LORD PENTLAND - N. Robertson, Clerk
Tuesday 16th March
By Order
|
1 |
A145/05 Sharon Lundon v
Fife NHS Board |
|
R F Macdonald |
|
Wednesday 17th March
By Order (Adjustment)
|
1 |
A546/09 Fiona Duncan v
Zurich Insurance Plc |
Thompsons |
Simpson & Marwick |
|
Thursday 18th March
PERSONAL INJURY ACTION
Case calling by order in terms of Rules
of Court 43.7(1)(b)
|
1 |
PD2568/09 Nicholas Young v
City of |
Thompsons |
|
|
Friday 19th March
PERSONAL INJURY ACTIONS
Cases calling by order in terms of Rules
of Court 43.7(1)(b)
|
1 |
PD623/09 Lynn Harrower v
National Insurance & Guarantee Corporation |
Thompsons |
Brodies LLP |
|
By Order
|
1 |
A81/09 John Ree Ltd v
Alistair Johnstone |
|
Morrisons |
|
|
2 |
A405/08 Karen Nicol v
Lanarkshire Health Board |
Russel & Aitkin |
R F Macdonald |
|
LORD BANNATYNE - N. Roberts, Clerk
Monday 15th March
Continued Motion
|
1 |
PD1020/06 Raymond McGregor
v Alpha Airports Group |
Party |
Simpson & Marwick |
|
Tuesday 16th March
By Order
|
1 |
PD940/09 Sandy Thain v The
Sunlight Service Group Limited |
Thompsons |
Simpson & Marwick |
|
Wednesday 17th March
By Order (Adjustment)
|
1 |
A657/09 Victoria Sykes v Churchill
Insurance Company Limited |
Thompsons |
Harper Macleod |
|
Thursday 18th March
PERSONAL INJURY ACTION
Case calling by order in terms of Rules
of Court 43.7(1)(b)
|
1 |
PD1597/09 Carol MacManus v
Strathmore Hotels Limited |
Drummond Miller |
Simpson & Marwick |
|
FAMILY ACTION
In terms of Rule 49, a proof has been
allowed in the following action
|
1 |
F3/10 Leann Rough v Stewart
Rough |
Sheehan Kelsey Oswald |
Morton Fraser |
|
By Order
|
1 |
PD1768/09 Catherine Abbot v
Advocate General for |
Thompsons |
Morton Fraser |
|
|
2 |
PD806/09 Kevin Foley v East
Renfrewshire Council |
Thompsons |
Reid Cooper Partnership |
|
Friday 19th March
By Order
|
1 |
A378/08 Helen Hienlon v
Cole Management Ltd |
|
McGrigors Solicitors LLP |
|
|
2 |
A652/07 Darryl Piern’s v
The Wards Medical Centre |
Allan McDougall & Co,
SSC |
MDDUS |
|
C.J. MacAULAY Q.C.
Tuesday 16th March
By Order
|
1 |
PD924/09 Carol Ann Gatherer
v B & Q Plc &c |
|
HBM Sayers |
Simpson & Marwick |
Wednesday 17th March
By Order (Adjustment)
|
1 |
A422/09 Andrew Stephenson v
Churchill Insurance Company Limited |
Thompsons |
Harper Macleod |
|
Thursday 18th March
FAMILY ACTION
In terms of Rule 49, a proof has been
allowed in the following action
|
1 |
F88/08 Danche Barker v
Brian Barker |
|
Balfour + Manson LLP |
|
By Order
|
1 |
PD1162/07 Jessie Donaldson v James Dear |
|
Whelan & Co |
|
PERSONAL INJURY ACTIONS
Cases calling by order in terms of Rules
of Court 43.7(1)(b)
|
1 |
PD2566/09 Angela Murray v
Donald Scarr |
|
Harper Macleod |
|
|
2 |
PD939/09 Gordon Morrison v
Aberdeen City Council |
Lefevre Litigation |
Simpson & Marwick |
|
Friday 19th March
By Order
|
1 |
A563/05 John Clarke v
Archibald Grant |
Russel & Aitken, WS |
Brodies LLP |
|
|
2 |
PD2199/07 Sarah McTaggart v
Tesco Car Insurance T/A Tesco Insurance |
Ritchie Neil |
HBM Sayers |
|
|
3 |
PD15/09 James Chalmers v
McTavish & Ramsay Company Ltd |
Digby Brown |
Simpson & Marwick |
|
|
4 |
PD1406/08 Martin Brennan v
Digisource EB Ltd, Charles Moore |
Allan McDougall |
HBM Sayers |
|
TO BE ALLOCATED
Tuesday 16th March
Proof
|
6 |
PD536/08 Oliver Brooks v
Rhodar ( |
Digby Brown |
HBM Sayers |
|
|
4 |
A980/08 Alan Law v Frank
Ronald &c |
Digby Brown |
Simpson & Marwick |
|
|
4 |
A869/08 Maria Steel v George Steel &c |
Drummond Miller |
Sheehan, Kelsey Oswald |
|
Proof Before
Answer
|
8 |
A555/07 Calum Wyllie v
Lothian Health Board |
Drummond Miller LLP |
R F Macdonald |
|
Tuesday 16th March
PERSONAL
INJURY ACTIONS
Proof
|
4 |
PD370/08 Alison Riddoch v
Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Plc |
Lefevre Litigation |
|
bto |
|
4 |
PD586/09 Charlotte Mitchell
v In Shops Centre Limited |
Lefevre Litigation |
Simpson & Marwick |
|
|
4 |
PD696/09 Michael English v
Chivas Brothers Limited |
Digby Brown |
Simpson & Marwick |
|
|
4 |
PD711/09 Chris McGready v
Adventure Scotland Limited |
Thompsons |
Simpson & Marwick |
|
|
4 |
PD768/09 Charles Kane v
Mulholland Contracts Limited &c |
Morisons |
Simpson & Marwick |
H B M Sayers |
|
4 |
PD772/09 Catherine
O’Donnell v A S Group ( |
Digby Brown |
H B M Sayers |
|
|
4 |
PD777/09 William Petrie v
Niall Mulligan &c |
Lindsays |
H B M Sayers |
|
|
4 |
PD805/09 Alexander Connie
&c v Fairfield Shipbuilding & Engineering Co Ltd |
Thompsons |
Simpson & Marwick |
|
TO BE
ALLOCATED
Wednesday 17th March
Procedural Hearing
|
1 |
P478/09 Pet: North
Lanarkshire Council for enforcement order |
Ledingham Chalmers |
Harper MacLeod |
|
Procedure
Roll
|
1 |
A789/06 James Percy v Govan
Initiative Ltd |
Party |
Simpson & Marwick |
|
TO BE
ALLOCATED
Thursday 18th March
Proof
|
2 |
P632/09 Pet: Robin Cross for Judicial Review |
Morton Fraser |
|
|
Proof Before
Answer
|
2 |
A304/09 Linda Alexander v
W.M. Morrisons Supermarkets Plc |
Thompsons |
Simpson & Marwick |
|
Procedure
Roll
|
2 |
A58/09 Elizabeth McLeod
&c v John Crawford &c |
Thompsons |
Brodies LLP |
|
TO BE
ALLOCATED
Friday 19th March
First
Hearing
|
1 |
P90/10 Pet:
Saed Hussiani for judicial review |
Drummond Miller |
C. Mullin |
|
Procedure
Roll
|
1 |
A356/09 Thomas Boyce v
Bikram Singh &c |
Lindsays |
R F McDonald |
Wright Johnstone &
MacKenzie |
|
|
|
|
bto |
|
Procedure
Roll
|
1 |
PD1599/09
John Devlin v Production Services Network ( |
|
Simpson
& Marwick |
|
EXTRA DIVISION
Thursday 18th March
Summar Roll (1 day)
Appeal from the Sheriffdom of
XA93/09 Messrs McManus, Campbell & Pottle v Marian
Van Overwaele
Blacklocks – Party
Friday 19th March
Summar Roll (1 day)
Reclaiming Motion (Lord Uist) in the cause
A751/05 Andrew Battenberg &c v Firm of Dunfallandy
House &c
Lindsays – bto
SECOND EXTRA DIVISION
Tuesday 16th March
Starred Single Bills
At
P1558/05 Pet: Prof Stephen Pendaries Kerr of Ardgowan
for Judicial Review
Brodies LLP - C Mullin
P1821/05 Pet:
Ayre Eur for Judicial Review
C Mullin
P1822/05 Pet:
Martin Goldstraw for Judicial Review
Lindsays - C Mullin
Summar Roll (1 day)
Appeal under section 37 of Employment Tribunal Act
1996 by
XA33/09 Ismail Ravat v Halliburton Manufacturing &
Services Ltd
Lefevre Litigation - Paull & Williamsons LLP
Wednesday 17th March
Summar Roll
Reclaiming Motion (Lord Menzies) in the cause
CA98/07 Albert Bartlett & Sons v Gilchrist &
Lynn Ltd &c
MacRoberts – Wallace Construction Law - Simpson &
Marwick
Thursday 18th March
Starred Single Bill
At
CA87/08 Eastford Limited v Thomas Gillespie &c
Semple Fraser -
Friday 19th March
By Order
At
XA156/09 BJ v Pauline Proudfoot
Drummond Miller - C Mullin
_______________
Monday 15th March
At
PETITION
FOR RECOVERY OF DOCUMENTS
HMA v
_______________