Primary Health Care Centres (Broadford) Ltd v. Humphrey & Ors [2011] ScotCS CSOH_92 (31 May 2011)

Primary Health Care Centres (Broadford) Ltd v. Humphrey & Ors [2011] ScotCS CSOH_92 (31 May 2011)

The final interlocutor for the purposes of Rule 42.1(2) was that of 1 October 2010, not 27 May 2009, as Dr Turville's involvement in the action continued throughout and the expenses awarded on 1 October 2010 related to the whole cause except as already dealt with. However, Dr Turville's account was not in the correct form as it did not separate expenses awarded under different interlocutors.

Citation
[2011] ScotCS CSOH_92
Parties
Pursuer: Primary Health Care Centres (Broadford) Ltd; Defender: Dr Alan William Humphrey; First Third Party: Prabhuling Ravangave; Second Third Party: Sheila Anne Turville
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
31 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil / Ruling on Application to Lodge Account of Expenses
Outcome
Motion refused in hoc statu (at this stage)
Legal Topics
Expenses, Taxation of Costs, Final Interlocutor, Res Judicata
Civil Procedure Expenses Taxation of Costs Final Interlocutor Res Judicata

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Primary Health Care Centres (Broadford) Ltd

Pursuer

Dr Alan William Humphrey

Defender

Prabhuling Ravangave

First Third Party

Sheila Anne Turville

Second Third Party

Procedural Posture

Civil / Ruling on Application to Lodge Account of Expenses

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Dr Turville's account of expenses was lodged within the time limit under Rule of Court 42.1(2)
  2. 2 Whether the interlocutor of 27 May 2009 or 1 October 2010 was the 'final interlocutor' for the purposes of the four-month period for lodging an account of expenses
  3. 3 Whether Dr Turville's account was in the correct form

Ratio Decidendi

The final interlocutor for the purposes of Rule 42.1(2) was that of 1 October 2010, not 27 May 2009, as Dr Turville's involvement in the action continued throughout and the expenses awarded on 1 October 2010 related to the whole cause except as already dealt with. However, Dr Turville's account was not in the correct form as it did not separate expenses awarded under different interlocutors.

Court Disposition

Motion refused in hoc statu (at this stage)

Orders

  • Dr Turville's motion to lodge her account of expenses late refused in hoc statu
  • Dr Turville required to lodge two separate accounts, each headed by the relevant interlocutor(s)