Bryant Homes (Scotland) Ltd & Ors v Secretary Of State For Scotland Per Greater Glasgow Health Board [2000] ScotCS 185 (6 July 2000)

Bryant Homes (Scotland) Ltd & Ors v Secretary Of State For Scotland Per Greater Glasgow Health Board [2000] ScotCS 185 (6 July 2000)

The Court held that the arbiter was wrong to refuse to state a case on questions 1 and 8, as both questions were relevant and required for the purposes of the appeal, given the incorporation of the letter in pleadings and the direct relationship between the adequacy of pleadings and the burden of proof issue.

Citation
[2000] ScotCS 185
Parties
Claimants: Bryant Homes (Scotland) Limited, Ambion Homes Limited and John Dickie Homes Limited; Respondents: The Secretary of State for Scotland, per Greater Glasgow Health Board
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
06 July 2000
Procedural Posture
Note by Respondents in Arbitration / Application for Order to Require Arbiter to State a Case on Specified Questions
Outcome
Arbiter directed to state a case including questions 1 and 8 in addition to those already selected.
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Evidence, Burden of Proof, Without Prejudice Communications, Pleadings, Arbitration Procedure
Arbitration Contract Law Civil Procedure Admissibility of Evidence Burden of Proof Without Prejudice Communications Pleadings Arbitration Procedure

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bryant Homes (Scotland) Limited, Ambion Homes Limited and John Dickie Homes Limited

Claimants

The Secretary of State for Scotland, per Greater Glasgow Health Board

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Note by Respondents in Arbitration / Application for Order to Require Arbiter to State a Case on Specified Questions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbiter should be required to state a case on questions 1 and 8 regarding admissibility of a letter and adequacy of pleadings on reasonableness of discretion.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the arbiter was wrong to refuse to state a case on questions 1 and 8, as both questions were relevant and required for the purposes of the appeal, given the incorporation of the letter in pleadings and the direct relationship between the adequacy of pleadings and the burden of proof issue.

Court Disposition

Arbiter directed to state a case including questions 1 and 8 in addition to those already selected.

Orders

  • Arbiter to state a case for the Opinion of the Court on questions 1 and 8 of the respondents' Minute, in addition to questions 2, 3 and 7.