Thomson v Rush For Authority To Uplift Consigned Money [2000] ScotCS 122 (12 May 2000)

Thomson v Rush For Authority To Uplift Consigned Money [2000] ScotCS 122 (12 May 2000)

The first part of the amendment was allowed as it clarified pleadings without prejudice to expenses. The second part was refused as it was irrelevant; the court cannot reduce its own interlocutors in the same litigation.

Citation
[2000] ScotCS 122
Parties
Petitioner: Alan Clark Thomson; Second Respondent: John Rush
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
12 May 2000
Procedural Posture
Petition / Interlocutory Application for Amendment of Record
Outcome
Partly allowed, partly refused
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Reduction Ope Exceptionis, Interlocutors
Civil Procedure Amendment of Pleadings Reduction Ope Exceptionis Interlocutors

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alan Clark Thomson

Petitioner

John Rush

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Petition / Interlocutory Application for Amendment of Record

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to allow amendment of the record as sought by the second respondent
  2. 2 Whether interlocutors in the same litigation can be reduced ope exceptionis

Ratio Decidendi

The first part of the amendment was allowed as it clarified pleadings without prejudice to expenses. The second part was refused as it was irrelevant; the court cannot reduce its own interlocutors in the same litigation.

Court Disposition

Partly allowed, partly refused

Orders

  • First part of amendment to record allowed
  • Second part of amendment to record refused