-
Ross in Morton v O'Donnell 1979 SLT (notes) 26). The defenders argued that the pursuer should have, upon a tender by a pursuer to be one of urgency (Morton v O'Donnell (supra), Lord Ross at 27 under
-
that the Land Court erred in law by not referring to McDonald v O'Donnell (2008 SC 189); and that it, not have enjoyed an agricultural tenancy of any form (McDonald v O'Donnell, supra, in which Rutherford
-
: _______ Appellant: Kerrigan, Q.C., Miss Mitchell; Liam O'Donnell & Co., Glasgow Respondent, : _______ Appellant: Kerrigan, Q.C., Miss Mitchell; Liam O'Donnell & Co., Glasgow Respondent: Mackay, A.D., ADVOCATE Respondent: _______ Appellant: Kerrigan, Q.C., Miss Mitchell; Liam O'Donnell & Co
-
and expenses awarded to the pursuer. She also referred to O'Donnell v M. & G. Robertson 1965 S.L.T., sum due by him under an award or in terms of a settlement (Burns at page 240; O'Donnell at page
-
size distribution tests carried out by the pursuers' civil engineering expert Eric O'Donnell in 2000, Messrs Kidd (formerly of ETC and Charles Lawrence), O'Donnell and Gibb for the pursuers, and Messrs Tipp, over two years later, and it is noteworthy that Mr O'Donnell cited roller marks on the video, size for the stone content was entirely consistent with Mr O'Donnell's measurement of the depth, O'Donnell's evidence was particularly positive in this connection. His considered view
-
to on a question of expenses (O'Donnell v AM & G Robertson 1965 SLT 155). If the second defender's offer had been
-
performed less physically demanding work as a computer salesman. His partner, Anne Marie O'Donnell
-
and Mr O'Donnell, solicitor, as curator ad litem. The application for a stated case posed nine, in paragraph [2] of this Note. [6] Mr O'Donnell as curator ad litem adopted the submissions made
-
the evidence of a skilled witness, Mr Jim O'Donnell. Mr O'Donnell is a freelance sports writer, tackle and cause significant injury to his opponent or even to himself. Mr O'Donnell described, the evidence of Mr O'Donnell, any player when tackling an opponent may be guilty of an error
-
by the evidence which had been led. In this connection reliance was placed on O'Donnell v Murdoch Mackenzie, and 203-4. The Lord Ordinary had not mentioned the authorities referred to, although O'Donnell v, of O'Donnell v Murdoch Mackenzie & Company, Johnstone v City of Glasgow District Council and Cordiner, Limited, O'Donnell v Murdoch Mackenzie & Company Limited, Johnstone v City of Glasgow District