Scotland Cases

This page shows all the Scottish cases by default, but you can filter the list by using the search tool above. You can search within the title, key terms, court name, judge's name and case notes fields by inputting a word, or words, or part of a word, or a phrase, into the search box.

  • 1st March 2011
    In the Petition of Mr & Mrs Paton
  • 19th November 2010
    David Clark v Argyle Consulting [2010] CSOH 154
  • 10th November 2010
    W H Malcolm Ltd [2010] CSOH 152
  • 21st October 2010
    AMW Plumbing & Heating Ltd v Zoom Developments Ltd CA324/09
  • 24th September 2010
    Bell Building v Carfin Developments CA296/09
  • 22nd July 2010
    City Inn v Shepherd [2010] CSIH 68 CA101/00
  • 14th July 2010
    UBC v Atholl [2010] CSOH 95
  • 1st July 2010
    Integrated Services t/a OPERON v PIHL UK Ltd [2010] CSOH 80
  • 22nd June 2010
    RBG Limited v SGL Carbon Fibres Ltd [2010] CSOH 77
    This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit SUMMARY (1) Where an adjudicator has acted intra vires, the courts will not intervene even if the decision is incorrect. But where an adjudicator has acted ultra vires – for example, by acting in breach of natural justice, or in failure to exercise jurisdiction – it is for the Court to decide whether his decision is vitiated as a result.  (2) As regards jurisdiction, an adjudicator, while restricted to issues focused in the dispute, has nevertheless both the power and duty to determine whether or not a claim that is put forward in respect of valuation of work done is validly asserted under the contract.  (3) The response to the claim for payment in this case was that no payment was due because of earlier overpayment.  Even if this was not a...
  • 14th June 2010
    Atholl Developments v UBC [2010] CSOH 94
    This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit SUMMARY (1) An award of an adjudicator would not be reduced where errors alleged to have been made by him in his decision failed to show that he had exceeded his jurisdiction or was in material breach of the rules of natural justice. (2) Accordingly an award under the same contract by the same adjudicator in a second adjudication, which was based upon his decision in the first adjudication, should not be reduced on the ground that it was tainted by the first adjudication. (3) Even if the award in the first adjudication had been reduced, the award in the second adjudication would still have been enforceable since the challenge to the first award was not made until after the second award had been issued. Outer House, Court of Session: Opinion of Lord Glennie Background The...