Fairbairn (AP) v Vayro [2000] ScotCS 134 (25 May 2000)

Fairbairn (AP) v Vayro [2000] ScotCS 134 (25 May 2000)

The Court refused to deprive the defender of the right to have his preliminary plea debated at the Procedure Roll, holding that neither Rule of Court 22.4 nor Practice Note No.4 of 1997 justify such deprivation for late lodging of Note of Argument. The Court allowed the defender's Note of Argument to be received late, finding acceptable reasons for the delay and no prejudice to the pursuer.

Citation
[2000] ScotCS 134
Parties
Pursuer: Thomas Fairbairn; Defender: Warren Vayro
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
25 May 2000
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Action (road Traffic Accident) / Interlocutory Motions Regarding Procedure Roll and Late Lodging of Note of Argument
Outcome
Defender's motion to allow Note of Argument to be received late granted; pursuer's motion to withdraw cause from Procedure Roll and allow issues for jury trial refused.
Legal Topics
Jury Trial Entitlement, Procedure Roll, Late Lodging of Note of Argument, Court Discretion Under Rules of Court
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Jury Trial Entitlement Procedure Roll Late Lodging of Note of Argument Court Discretion Under Rules of Court

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thomas Fairbairn

Pursuer

Warren Vayro

Defender

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Action (road Traffic Accident) / Interlocutory Motions Regarding Procedure Roll and Late Lodging of Note of Argument

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether late lodging of Note of Argument by defender deprives defender of right to Procedure Roll debate
  2. 2 Whether pursuer is entitled to have issues allowed for jury trial due to defender's procedural default

Ratio Decidendi

The Court refused to deprive the defender of the right to have his preliminary plea debated at the Procedure Roll, holding that neither Rule of Court 22.4 nor Practice Note No.4 of 1997 justify such deprivation for late lodging of Note of Argument. The Court allowed the defender's Note of Argument to be received late, finding acceptable reasons for the delay and no prejudice to the pursuer.

Court Disposition

Defender's motion to allow Note of Argument to be received late granted; pursuer's motion to withdraw cause from Procedure Roll and allow issues for jury trial refused.

Orders

  • Defender's Note of Argument received late
  • Diet for Procedure Roll remains fixed for October