O'connor & Anor v. Bullimore Underwriting Agency Ltd (t/a The Leisure Consortium At Lloyds) [2005] ScotCS CSOH_90 (08 July 2005)

O'connor & Anor v. Bullimore Underwriting Agency Ltd (t/a The Leisure Consortium At Lloyds) [2005] ScotCS CSOH_90 (08 July 2005)

Logie & McArthur did not have a sufficiently direct interest or requisite control over the litigation to be considered dominus litis and thus are not liable for the defenders' expenses.

Citation
[2005] ScotCS CSOH_90
Parties
Pursuers: Frank O'Connor and another; Defenders: Bullimore Underwriting Agency Limited, trading as The Leisure Consortium At Lloyd's; Interested Party: Logie & McArthur Insurance Brokers Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
08 July 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil / Post Proof Motion for Expenses
Outcome
Defenders' motion refused
Legal Topics
Dominus Litis, Third Party Funding, Liability for Expenses, Insurance Indemnity
Civil Procedure Insurance Law Dominus Litis Third Party Funding Liability for Expenses Insurance Indemnity

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Frank O'Connor and another

Pursuers

Bullimore Underwriting Agency Limited, trading as The Leisure Consortium At Lloyd's

Defenders

Logie & McArthur Insurance Brokers Limited

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Civil / Post Proof Motion for Expenses

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Logie & McArthur, as third-party funders, should be held liable for expenses as dominus litis for part of the litigation

Ratio Decidendi

Logie & McArthur did not have a sufficiently direct interest or requisite control over the litigation to be considered dominus litis and thus are not liable for the defenders' expenses.

Court Disposition

Defenders' motion refused

Orders

  • No order for expenses against Logie & McArthur