Frimokar (UK) Ltd v Mobile Technical Plant (International) Ltd
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Year | 1990 |
| Date | 1990 |
| Court | Court of Session (Outer House) |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
11 cases
-
Application Under The Double Jeopardy (scotland) Act 2011 By Her Majesty's Advocate Against (first) Ronnie Coulter; (second) Andrew Coulter; And (third) David Montgomery
...at 123). Shorter periods had been deemed sufficient to mitigate any prejudice (HM Advocate v Beggs 2011 SCCR 879; Kilbane v HM Advocate 1990 SLT 180; and Haney v HM Advocate (No. 2) 2003 JC 46). The focusing effect of listening to evidence over a prolonged period was important (HM Advocate ......
-
Lithgow Factoring Limited Trading As Inver Salmon V. Nordvik Salmon Farms Limited
...v Jamieson & Paterson 1963 S.C. 289 (a decision of Lord Kilbrandon) and Frimokar (UK) Ltd v Mobile Technical Plant (International) Ltd 1990 S.L.T. 180 (a decision of Lord Caplan). Reference was also made in this connection to the commentary on section 59 of the 1893 Act to be found in Richa......
-
Ab Against Cd
...and para 7 of Moir v Memsie 2017 Rep L R 78. [9] He also referred to Frimokar (UK) Ltd v Mobile Technical Plant (International) Ltd 1990 SLT 180 at page 4 where Lord Caplan emphasised that “A hearing in a summary decree motion is more far reaching [than a debate on the relevancy of pleading......
-
Frances Mclaughlin As Guard Of John Rennie (opinion No. 2) V. Pauline Morrison+esure Services Limited
...in determining whether or not there is a defence to the action. In Frimokar (UK) Lt. v Mobile Technical Plant (International) Ltd 1990 SLT 180, Lord Caplan expressed the following views, which I adopt: "In my view Rule of Court 89B [the predecessor of Rule 21.2] is largely aimed at the dila......
Request a trial to view additional results