After the event (ATE) insurance is a type of policy taken out after a dispute has arisen to protect against the risk of having to pay the opponent's legal costs if you lose. The UK Supreme Court has held in McGraddie v McGraddie that an ATE insurance premium is not a recoverable cost by the successful party in Scottish proceedings.
Have you ever stood on an upturned plug? I have. At least three times, from memory. It is a combination of the most irritating and uncomfortable injury I have ever sustained. Each time, I found myself grabbing my foot, hopping around like a kangaroo and screaming “WHO PUT THAT THERE?!”
This may seem like a completely unreasonable response to (a) not watching my step and (b) neglecting to wear anything on my feet, but I would not be the first to lay the blame for my injuries on the person who brought the offending product into my personal space.
The Lord President of the Court of Session, Lord Gill, yesterday announced a timetable for implementation of various parts of the Courts Reform (Scotland) Act 2014:
From September 2015
- A new personal injury court with Scotland-wide jurisdiction will be established in Edinburgh.
- The threshold for raising cases in the Court of Session will increase from £5,000 to £100,000
- A new Sheriff Appeal Court will be created to deal with appeals from sheriffs. The court will have nationwide jurisdiction (rather than the present appeals to
Today, the Scottish Parliament is expected to pass the Courts Reform Act. This piece of legislation will have a profound impact on litigation in Scotland: there will be a significant transfer of business from the Court of Session, the superior court, to the sheriff courts. The Scottish Government’s intention is that the Court of Session will (mostly) be left to deal with cases worth over £100,000.
The case of Briggs & Ors v Gleeds (Head Office) & Ors, is a salutary lesson on taking care to comply with the required formalities when executing deeds.
Around thirty deeds dated between 1993 and 2006, which were intended to amend the pension scheme documentation, were found to be invalid because the signatures of the partners in the employing partnership had not been witnessed.