-
a proof their averments, before answer, on a date to be hereafter assigned; assigns the day of March, : Background [1] This case called before me for debate on 7 January 2013 in respect of the pursuer's plea, in dividing the free proceeds of sale. [7] While counsel accepted that an equitable remedy might include
-
March 1997 and January 1998. The pursuer is a computer software engineer, and the work in question, rights under EC legislation. In particular, said order for caution was in breach of Article 7 [sic, the years (originally article 7, post-Maastricht 1993 article 6, and post-Amsterdam 1999 article 12
-
, firstly by Sheriff Tierney on 5 March 2004, and secondly by Sheriff Cowan on 3 September 2004, granted legal aid for the purposes of the appeal. [7]The history of the proceedings in England, an excerpt from a judgement apparently given on 7 October 1994 by Mr Justice Thorpe (as he
-
should have commenced building operations within 14 days of the date of entry, 31 March 1995 and paid, ' used in similar contexts. (For example section 1(7) Requirements of Writing (Scotland) Act 1995 (c. 7
-
, QC, instructed by Burness LLP, Edinburgh DUMFRIES: 18 March 2011. The Sheriff Principal, having, ], [3], [6] and [7] he deals with the procedural history of the case; and between paragraphs [8] and [28, opportunity to comment on the intended grounds of appeal in more detail [7] Although the Note is dated 29
-
the second defender between 17 January 2017 and 17 March 2017; and 1.2 That, on a proper construction, and 17 March 2017; 2. Sustains the second defender’s pleas-in-law numbers 1 and 2 so far, related plea-in-law number 9; and Dismisses crave 5 of the initial writ; 7. Sustains the pursuer’s, pending the outcome of this action. [7] The purpose of this commercial action is to eliminate the general, will then arrange the transfer of your refund directly to your bank account. This can take up to 7
-
occasions. [6] On 22 March 2022 the decision was reported in an Article on The Sun’s, , the Article notes that “Connor started working nightshifts as a facilities assistant in March 2019, to be read online. [7] The pursuer avers that the defender processed his personal, is concerned with the legal professional privilege exception provided by Paragraph 10 to Schedule 7, by Section 6(7) of the EU Law (European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (“the EU 2018 Act”). [34
-
or proved: The pursuer is aged 46 and is a painter and decorator. As at March 2013, he had been, of fact 7 being that of a fall which is liable to cause personal injury. The risk of such a fall, in finding of fact 7. The work involved was the painting of the rear and the sides of the building using, was suffering when examined by Mr Lindsay on 16 March 2012, and his prognosis. Numbers 5/2 and 6/4, a guardrail on that type of staircase. [7] I accept that if a guardrail had been placed across the stairs
-
(production 5/2) dated 7 May 1993. The late Mr Hardie had resigned as a partner in 1989. He was entitled, . No explanation or excuse is offered. [7] The matter is further complicated by the raising, 22 September 1998 until 15 March 2001 and there was little or no activity between late 1998, by virtue of section 6(3)(a). Section 7(1) provides that " A person who claims that a public, March 1993 (5/3/10) from the first defender to the pursuer's agents referred to "legal assurance
-
95. 7. Mr Aitken appeared for the father, the second named respondent. Mr Aitken adopted and updated, judgment of 5 March 2012 seems to reflect the date when typographical and other errors were corrected. 14, accommodated voluntarily. A child protection order was granted at this court on 7 February 2008 which, with foster carers. She was with the same foster carer between 7 February 2008 and 7 July 2010 when, was fixed for 8 March 2010 following which the parents lodged answers and proof was fixed for 27 September