SCTSPRINT3

Thursday 29th March 2018

 


Issue No. 145

 

 

 

C O N T E N T S

 

 

 

 

Erratum

Notice

Unopposed Motions

Further Procedure Warning List

Further Procedure Warning List Personal Injury

Calling List

Undefended Consistorial Causes

Outer House Rolls

Inner House Rolls

 


E R R A T U M

 

The following notice should have appeared in the rolls of court dated Friday 23rd March 2018:

 

Adjustment in the undernoted cases commenced on Wednesday 21st March 2018 and in the absence of any court order to the contrary the records therein will, without further publication in the rolls, close on Wednesday 16th May 2018

 

1

A387/17 Amanda Urquhart v West Larkin Ltd &c

Currie Gilmour & Co

Trainor Alston

 

 

 

2

A47/18 Timothy Lea v Bristow Helicopters Ltd

 

Balfour + Manson LLP

 

Clyde & Co

 

 

 

 

 

 

______________________

 

 

 


N O T I C E

 

 

AMENDED PRINCIPLES TO BE APPLIED TO THE CHARGING OF COURT FEES IN GROUPS OF CASES

 

You may be aware that questions have arisen in respect of fees charged for substantive hearings where a group of cases, neither conjoined nor with a test case appointed, were before the court and each was charged the full hearing fee in terms of the Fees Order, the Court of Session etc. Fees Order 2015[1].

 

The relevant Fees Order, the Court of Session etc. Fees Order 2015, (from 25 April 2018, the Court of Session etc. Fees Order 2018[2]) is framed in unambiguous terms.  There is provision in the enabling legislation to provide, in fees orders, for the remission of fees, and Parliament has chosen not to provide for remission in these circumstances.  Nevertheless, there remains an obligation on the part of SCTS, in terms of administrative law, to exercise discretion – for example, where a strict application of the fees set out in the Fees Order would produce a manifestly unfair outcome.  Given this need to exercise discretion, in these limited circumstances, some guiding principles will be followed.  Generally speaking, the exercise of discretion would involve restricting the fees which would otherwise be charged in terms of the relevant Table of Fees.

 

 

PRINCIPLES TO BE APPLIED

 

These principles relate only to charging of fees for proofs, debates or other substantive hearings in the Court of Session where a group of cases are heard together, generally with the attention of the court focussed on one principal case.  The principles are not retrospective.

 

The issue should not arise in groups of cases where there is a test case, or where cases are conjoined.  If parties have identified a test case, and agreed to be bound by its outcome, then typically all other cases will be sisted.  The test case will be charged fees in the usual way and the others will not, because they are sisted, incur fees.  Where cases are conjoined there is, notionally, only one case, and one set of interlocutors, and thus only fees in the single case will be charged.

 

Difficulties may arise where the court is asked to deal with a group of cases, all proceeding at the same time.  There will typically be a principal case and a number of other cases.  The principal case will address the main issues.  There may well be variations in the facts and legal issues in those other cases such that each, singly or in sub-groups, needs individual attention from the court once the principal case has addressed the main issues.  For these reasons, conjoining the cases or appointing a test case may not have been practicable.  In these circumstances, if the hearing fees are likely to be very substantial relative to the actual amount of court resources employed, and there is a concern that charging full fees would bring about a manifestly unfair result, there is scope to exercise discretion in the charging of those fees.

 

How this discretion is exercised will depend on the particular circumstances.  The principal case will almost always be charged full fees.  Where other cases within the group have taken up some of the court’s time, then it might be appropriate to remit the usual fee in each of those cases by a factor of, say, 80%.  Thus, in a typical case, the principal case would attract a full fee, and all the other cases would be charged at 20% of full fees.

 

It is neither necessary nor practicable to try to calculate precisely what proportion of the court’s time has been taken up by those cases other than the principal case, and to calculate percentage remissions accordingly.  Any remission offered is not based on a precise calculation of the court time involved.

 

 

ACTION REQUIRED

 

It will be for parties’ agents to nominate a principal case or cases, as soon as possible.  Parties’ agents will require to enrol a motion, in advance of the hearing or hearings in respect of which remission is sought, for a specific case to be identified as the principal case for the purposes of handling that group of cases in court, and for the possible remission of hearing fees.  It will be sufficient if the motion is enrolled in the prospective principal case, provided all other cases in the group are listed in the motion.  A style of motion to nominate a principal case and for possible remission of fees is annexed.

 

Each party’s agent is responsible for enrolling a motion for those cases in which he is instructed.  Such a motion, if granted, will have no effect on any other party’s liability for hearing fees.  A joint motion may be appropriate in many cases.  An agent’s failure to enrol a motion at the appropriate time is likely to preclude the exercise of discretion to remit the fees in the cases for which he is responsible.

 

 

The fact that a party’s agent has nominated a principal case, and such a motion has been granted in respect of the handling of the group of cases, does not guarantee that any element of the fees chargeable will be restricted.  That will always depend on circumstances.

 

In many cases it will be possible for the judge hearing the motion to decide at the time whether to allow a remission of fees.  If the judge wishes to hear the evidence or submissions in the case first, that part of the motion in respect of the question of remission of fees may be continued to a later date.  In these circumstances it will be for the relevant party’s counsel to move for the remission of fees at that time.

 

 

 

 

March 2018

 

_________________

 

 

Form of motion for designation of principal case and remission of court fees, where cases grouped together

PART I

 

Name of pursuer/petitioner*………………………………………………………….

 

Name of first defender/respondent*…………………………………………………..

 

Name and nature of petition (e.g. John Smith’s curatory) ……………………………

………………………….

 

Court case number ………………….   Date of last interlocutor …………………….

 

Is case due in court during the next seven days?   Yes/No*

 

(If Yes, state reason)

 

 

PART II

 

Name of firm enrolling motion ……………………

 

Agent for …………………………………….   Ref No. ………………………………

 

Rutland Exchange No. ………………………   Town  ………………………………..

 

Tel. No. ………………………………………   FAX No. …………………………….

 

Date of enrolment of motion …………………………………………………………...

 

Has motion been intimated?   Yes/No*  If yes, give date ……………………………...

 

THE MOTION IS (state terms of motion; if necessary, use a separate sheet):-

 

_____________________________________________________________________

On behalf of the pursuer / defender / petitioner/ respondent (as the case may be) in respect that the cases referred to below cannot be conjoined or have a test case appointed,

  1. to designate AB against CD, reference number (             ) as the principal case in the group of cases listed, to make such order in respect of that case, and the other cases listed below, in relation to the management of those cases, as shall seem proper; and,
  2. to remit the court hearing fees due in respect of the cases listed below, to the extent of 80% of the usual fees in each case, or such other percentage as the court considers appropriate, by reason that (specify reasons) and to make such order as shall seem proper.

 

EF against GH – reference number

IJ against KL – reference number

MN against OP – reference number

(Signed by counsel or other person having a right of audience)

* Delete as appropriate

 

 

 

 

 

 

______________________

 

 


UNOPPOSED MOTIONS

 

 

The following motions were granted, unopposed, on Friday 23rd March

 

 

A542/08 Arnold Clark Auto Ltd &c v Revenue & Customs

Brodies LLP

 

 

A623/13 Kaki Blackwood &c v Fife Council

 

Thompsons

 

 

A248/17 Thomas Draper &c v Forth Valley Health Board

 

NHS Scotland Central Legal Office

 

 

A151/17 H&K Willis Ltd v James Gilmour Brodlie &c

 

MacRoberts LLP

 

 

A2238/02 David Jamieson v Harland + Wolff Plc &c

 

Clyde & Co

 

 

A90/16 Zoe Kennedy v Greater Glasgow Health Board

 

Thompsons

 

 

A244/17 Marks & Spencers Plc v The Livingston Designer Outlet &c

 

DAC Beachcroft Scotland LLP

 

 

 

A635/13 William Orru v Fife Council

 

Thompsons

 

 

A189/15 Leanne Salmond v Fife Council

 

Thompsons

 

 

A582/15 Angela Syme &c v Fife Council

 

Thompsons

 

 

A106/17 The Greenock Arts Guild Ltd v Faithful & Gould Ltd &c

 

BTO Solicitors LLP

 

 

A98/16 Marjory Williams &c v Stephen Walton &c

 

DAC Beachcroft Scotland LLP

 

 

 

PD68/18 Christopher Paterson v Harrison & Duff Ltd

 

Clyde & Co

 

 

PD217/17 June Clark &c v Forbo-Nairn Ltd

 

Balfour + Manson LLP

 

 

PD2218/15 Shavonne Edwards v City of Edinburgh Council

 

Clyde & Co

 

 

PD152/15 Gregor Kennedy v Duncan Logan (Builders) Ltd &c

 

Thompsons

 

 

PD332/17 Shyrlee Lino v John Bradley

 

Thorntons Law LLP

 

 

PD412/17 Eric Piper v Helix Wells Ops (UK) Ltd

 

Thompsons

 

 

PD66/18 Ruth Stephen &c v Savile Investments Ltd

 

Thompsons

 

 

F45/12 Tracy Di Ciacca v Renato Di Ciacca

 

Morton Fraser LLP

 

 

 

 

The following motions were granted, unopposed, on Monday 26th March

 

 

A165/16 Anders Wai-Chung Tong &c v Robert Goodburn

 

Anderson Strathern LLP

 

 

A166/16 Anders Wai-Chung Tong &c v Goodburn Baillie Architecture Ltd

 

Anderson Strathern LLP

 

 

A83/15 Graham Cowell-Smith v Sara Hornibrook &c

Shoosmiths LLP

 

 

 

A637/15 Robin Fulton &c v Keith Muir

 

Turcan Connell

 

 

A68/18 Gwen Lawrie v Fairfield Medical Practice &c

 

Balfour + Manson LLP

 

 

A116/15 Aileen Mackenzie v Perth & Kinross Council

 

Thompsons

 

 

A426/16 Dawn McAughtrie v Ayrshire Arran Health Board

 

Drummond Miller LLP

 

 

A89/17 Nancy Stewart v Lorraine McKenzie

 

Kennedys Scotland

 

A13/17 Heather Watson v Michael Hullin

 

MDDUS

 

F12/18 Beverley Renwick v Bruce Renwick

 

Morton Fraser LLP

 

 

PD423/17 Gwen Black &c v Christopher Penfold &c

 

Digby Brown LLP

 

 

PD487/17 Agnes Boll &c v Secretary of State &c

 

Thompsons

 

 

PD383/17 Christopher Hartdegan &c v Roddy Graham

 

Harper Macleod LLP

 

 

PD530/17 Peter Herron v David Herron

 

DAC Beachcroft Scotland LLP

 

 

PD209/17 Janette MacDonald &c v William Kenyon & Sons

 

Thompsons

 

 

PD458/17 John Keenan v Wood Group UK Ltd

 

Burness Paull LLP

 

 

PD2466/15 Donna McInnes v Anne Gillies &c

 

Digby Brown LLP

 

 

PD1719/15 David Mitchell v The BOC Group Ltd &c

 

Thompsons

 

 

PD193/17 Marcus Murray v Brown Engineering (Fochabers) Ltd

 

Digby Brown LLP

 

 

PD38/18 Anthony Welsh v Currie International Holdings Ltd

 

BTO Solicitors LLP

 

 

PD523/17 Duncan Winning v The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation & Skills

 

Thompsons

 

 

 

 

The following motions were granted, unopposed, on Tuesday 27th March

 

 

A846/15 Balfour Thomson &c v The Lord Advocate

 

SGLD

 

A632/14 Benkert UK Ltd v Rexson Colorweigh Ltd

 

BTO Solicitors LLP

 

 

A267/17 Joyce Clark &c v Mark Paulo &c

 

Lindsays

 

 

A72/18 Andrew Craig-Wood v Bristow Helicopters Ltd

 

Clyde & Co

 

 

A126/17 John Dempster v John Horsey &c

 

Thorley Stephenson SSC

 

 

A76/15 Sarah Duncan v Grampian Health Board

 

Balfour + Manson LLP

 

 

A389/17 Caroline Dyson v C Ruth Dorward &c

 

MDDUS

 

A347/17 John Hunter &c v Lanarkshire Health Board

 

NHS Scotland Central Legal Office

 

 

A2238/02 David Jamieson v Harland + Wolff Plc &c

 

Thompsons

 

 

A172/17 Len Lothian Ltd v Granton Central Developments Ltd &c

 

Gilson Gray LLP

 

A78/16 Margaret Mullen &c v Lanarkshire Health Board

 

Drummond Miller LLP

 

 

A433/16 Gordon Shearer v Betvictor Ltd

 

Thorley Stephenson SSC

 

 

A880/15 Strabane Enterprises Ltd v The Lord Advocate

 

SGLD

 

A878/15 Thomas Packe &c v The Lord Advocate

 

SGLD

 

A434/17 Vapouriz Ltd v CCHG t/a Vaporized

 

Burness Paull LLP

 

 

A423/16 Qumar Zaman (AP) v Andrew Ashworth &c

 

Balfour + Manson LLP

 

 

PD279/17 James Boag v Aviva Insurance &c

 

Russel + Aitken

 

 

PD42/18 Kenneth Brown v D M Fabrications Ltd

 

Clyde & Co

 

 

PD2806/15 Alexander Flannigan v Bakkavor Group Ltd

 

Digby Brown LLP

 

 

PD438/17 Tina Gray v Zurich Insurance Plc

 

Jackson Boyd LLP

 

PD1737/15 Nicholas Hay v Centrica Plc

 

Clyde & Co

 

 

PD163/17 Caroline Jacob &c v Tayside Health Board &c

 

Morton Fraser LLP

 

 

PD500/17 Bernard McGarvey v British Telecommunications Plc

 

Thompsons

 

 

PD122/17 Thomas Penrole &c v Scottish Prison Service &c

 

NHS Scotland Central Legal Office

 

 

PD531/17 Archibald Wilson v Admiral Insurance Ltd

 

Allan McDougall

 

 

 

 

The following motions were granted, unopposed, on Wednesday 28th March

 

 

A121/17 Elizabeth Fairley v Edinburgh Trams Ltd &c

 

BLM

 

 

A264/17 Lorraine Greig v NHS Grampian

 

Drummond Miller LLP

 

 

A485/15 Michal Grzesiak v Helen Boston &c

 

Digby Brown LLP

 

 

A293/17 Steve Hunter v Boyles Solicitors

 

Brodies LLP

 

 

A409/16 Yvonne Lochrie v National Waiting Times Centre Board

 

NHS Scotland Central Legal Office

 

 

A97/16 Mark Bain &c v Karl Martin

 

Lefevre Litigation

 

 

A12/18 Patrick Kelly v NHS Tayside

 

Thompsons

 

 

A437/13 The Scottish Police Authority &c v Cruden Estate Ltd

 

DAC Beachcroft Scotland LLP

 

 

PD58/18 Fatmah Albuloushi v John Barr

 

Clyde & Co

 

 

PD357/17 Agnes Anderson v Whitbread Plc

 

Digby Brown LLP

 

 

PD423/17 Gwen Black &c v Christopher Penfold &c

 

Clyde & Co

 

 

PD113/16 Georgina Blackie v Crudens (Milton Keynes) Ltd &c

 

Thompsons

 

 

PD500/16 Cameron Donald &c v Acre Care Homes

 

Digby Brown LLP

 

 

PD521/17 Marcia Evans &c v James Buchanan &c

 

Digby Brown LLP

 

 

PD363/17 Jacqueline Ferguson v Scottish Ambulance Service

 

NHS Scotland Central Legal Office

 

 

PD470/17 Margaret Grahame &c v Guthrie Court Ltd

 

Digby Brown LLP

 

 

PD1737/15 Nicholas Hay v Centrica Plc

 

Balfour + Manson LLP

 

 

PD355/17 Sandra Hopton v Smith Anderson & Co Ltd

 

Digby Brown LLP

 

 

PD368/17 Paul Hylton v MCL Medics Ltd

 

Thompsons

 

 

PD427/17 Lorraine Logg v UK Insurance Ltd

 

BLM

 

PD350/17 William Rae v RTR Scaffolding Ltd

 

BTO Solicitors LLP

 

 

PD277/17 Rebecca Thomson &c v Joseph Connelly

 

Digby Brown LLP

 

 

PD523/17 Duncan Winning v The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation & Skills

 

Clyde & Co

 

 

A355/16 Kirstin Corney &c v Grampian Health Board

 

Balfour + Manson LLP

 

 


FURTHER PROCEDURE WARNING LIST

 

 

Further procedure is required in the undernoted cases.   Accordingly the cases will be put out By Order in the near future.

 

 

1

P1251/17 Pet: Sarah Ibrahim for Judicial Review

 

Office of the Advocate General

 

 

 

2

P331/16 Pet: Michal Fields for orders under section 27 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act

 

Balfour + Manson LLP

 

Burness Paull LLP

 

 

 

 

 

 

FURTHER PROCEDURE WARNING LIST

 

PERSONAL INJURY ACTIONS

 

 

Further procedure is required in the undernoted cases.   Accordingly the cases will be put out By Order in the near future.

 

 

1

PD2187/15 Elizabeth Miller v Balfour Beatty Engineering Services &c

 

Thompsons

 

DAC Beachcroft Scotland LLP

 

 

 

2

PD2450/15 David Murie v Security Plus

 

Thompsons

 

Plexus Law

 

 

3

PD59/17 Anne Field v Stuntbrand Lines Ltd &c

 

Thompsons

 

Brodies LLP

 

Clyde & Co

 

4

PD144/17 Hayden Titmuss v John Ferrier

 

Balfour + Manson LLP

 

BTO Solicitors LLP

 

 

5

PD306/17 Colin McClung v John Sutherland

Balfour + Manson LLP

 

BTO Solicitors LLP

 

 

6

PD335/17 Margaret Hawkes &c v KGM Underwriting Services Ltd

 

Bonnar Accident Law

 

Reid Cooper

 

 

7

PD1628/14 Sara MacMillan v Roland Holmes t/a Perth Equine Transport

 

Digby Brown LLP

 

Aberdein Considine & Co

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

______________________

 

 

 

 


COURT OF SESSION

 

 

CALLING LIST

 

Tuesday 27th March

 

 

1

(First) Lynette Cloy, 19 John Crabbe Crescent, Kirkton, Dumfries and others AG (First) James Kiltie, 14 Shortridge Court, Dumfries and another.

 

Thompsons

 

2

(First) Hochtief Solutions AG, Opernplatz 2, 45128 Essen, Germany and others AG Tony Gee and Partners LLP, Hardy House, 140 High Street, Esher, Surrey.

 

Pinsent Masons LLP

 

3

Sky Plc, Grant Way, Isleworth, Middlesex and another AG Claire Gorman, Cheers Bar, 84 Main Street, Cambusland.

 

Burness Paull LLP

 

4

Sky Plc, Grant Way, Isleworth, Middlesex and another AG G V Brown Limited, 31 Easterhouse Road, Baillieston, Glasgow and another.

 

Burness Paull LLP

 

5

Sky Plc, Grant Way, Isleworth, Middlesex and another AG Linelly Limited, 8 Bonnington Road and another.

 

Burness Paull LLP

 

6

Sky Plc, Grant Way, Isleworth, Middlesex and another AG Jagtar Singh Nijjar, O’Kanes, 172 – 174 Westmuir Street, Glasgow and another.

 

Burness Paull LLP

 

 

Wednesday 28th March

 

 

1

Orrmac (No 500) Limited, 1 Rutland Court, Edinburgh, Scotland AG Marshall Construction Limited, The Whins, Alloa, Clackmannanshire.

 

Anderson Strathern LLP

 

 


 

Thursday 29th March

 

 

1

Ferdinando Antonio Franchitti, 33 Silverwells Crescent, Bothwell, Lanarkshire AG Adam Inglis Armstrong, 7 Dunvegan Drive, Newton Mearns, Glasgow.

 

TC Young LLP

2

Adrian Lindsay, 2 Skua Drive, Dalgety Bay, Dunfermline, Fife AG FMC Technologies Limited, Eversheds House, 70 Great Bridgewater Street, Manchester.

 

Thompsons

 

3

Miss Sophie Stobbs, Outfield Farm, Abernyte, Perth AG Volvo Group UK Limited, Wedgnock Lane, Warwick and another.

 

Thorntons Law LLP

 

 

 

 

______________________

 

 

 

 

UNDEFENDED CONSISTORIAL CAUSES

 

 

Decree has been granted in the undernoted cases on 20 March 2018.

 

 

1

Philippa Ramsden v Jigme Blone

 

2

Stephen Fleming v Floremae Fleming

 

 

 

 

 

______________________

 

 

 


OUTER HOUSE ROLLS

 

 

LORD BRAILSFORD – L Davies, Clerk

 

Friday 6th April

 

By Order

at 9.00am

 

F142/08 Diane Gaffney v James Gaffney

 

Wright Johnston & Mackenzie LLP

 

DAC Beachcroft Scotland LLP

 

 

 

 

LORD BANNATYNE – C Stark, Clerk

 

Tuesday 3rd April

 

Hearing

at 9.00am

 

A429/17 Sky Plc &c v Nicholas Whewell &c

 

Burness Paull LLP

 

 

 

 

Friday 6th April

 

By Order

between 9.00am and 9.30am

 

CA143/16 McLaughlin & Harvey Ltd v Tony Gee & Partners LLP

 

Brodies LLP

 

BTO Solicitors LLP

 

 


By Order

between 9.30am and 10.00am

 

CA149/14 Electricity Supply Nominees Ltd v Aker Business Services &c

 

Shepherd & Wedderburn

 

Clyde & Co

 

Ledingham Chalmers LLP

 

 

Pinsent Masons LLP

 

CMS

 

Procedural Hearing

at 10.00am

 

P277/17 Pet: Sky Plc &c for breach of interdict

 

Burness Paull LLP

 

Drummond Miller LLP

 

 

 

 

LORD TYRE – T Sadler, Clerk

 

Tuesday 3rd April

 

Procedural Hearing

 

A652/13 Euphemia Brown &c v Alison Smith &c

 

Drummond Miller LLP

 

Clyde & Co

 

NHS Scotland Central Legal Office

 

 

Wednesday 4th April

 

By Order (Adjustment)

 

A59/17 Ian Harvey &c v Dumfries & Galloway Health Board

 

Drummond Miller LLP

 

NHS Scotland Central Legal Office

 

 


PERSONAL INJURY ACTIONS

Cases calling By Order in terms of Rule of Court 43.10(3)

 

PD324/17 Alastair Patterson v East Lothian Council

 

Thompsons

 

Ledingham Chalmers LLP

 

 

PD458/16 Ewan Simpson v Alan Tait &c

 

Digby Brown LLP

 

 

 

 

Thursday 5th April

 

Hearing in terms of Rule of Court 58.8(2)

 

P1192/17 Pet: Lakhvir Singh for Judicial Review

 

Drummond Miller LLP

 

Office of the Advocate General

 

 

By Order

 

A101/17 Fawaz Abdulaziz Al Hokair & Co v Stephen Craig

 

MacRoberts LLP

 

Harper Macleod LLP

 

 

 

 

LORD CLARK – E Hunter, Clerk

 

Tuesday 3rd April

 

Procedural Hearing

between 9.00am and 9.30am

 

CA116/17 Susan Wriglesworth v Karen Brennan

 

Halliday Campbell

 

MSM Solicitors

 

By Order

at 9.30am

 

CA50/17 AEP Scotland Ltd v Gavin Cleaver &c

 

Harper Macleod LLP

 

Balfour + Manson LLP

 

 

 


INNER HOUSE ROLLS

 

 

EXTRA DIVISION

 

Friday 6th April

 

Procedural Hearing

at 10.00am

 

CA45/17 Mohammed Iftikhar v CIP Property (AIPT) Ltd

 

Balfour + Manson LLP

 

Dentons

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

______________________

 

 

 

 



[1] SSI 2015/261 

[2] SSI 2018/83