(Outer House) The pursuer had sought damages from the defender, but failed to submit the claim for expenses. The defenders said they were prejudiced by the delay.
Held: ‘Comparing the prejudice the pursuers would suffer, were the motion to be refused, with that which the defenders will face, if the motion is granted, I am satisfied that I should exercise my discretion in favour of the pursuers and grant the motion.’
Lord Mackay Of Drumadoon
 ScotCS 205
Cited – UCB Bank Plc v Dundas and Wilson SCS 1990
It would not be competent for the Court of Session to restrict the pursuers’ entitlement to a fraction or percentage of the sums brought out as being payable in terms of the accounts, after they had been taxed by the Auditor. . .
Cited – William Copland Taylor v Marshalls Food Group (2) OHCS 6-Nov-1998
The First Division held that section 5 had not authorised the Court to enact a Rule of Court that entitled a pursuer, who had lodged and beaten a ‘pursuer’s offer’, to payment of a sum equal to the taxed amount of the expenses of process. The Rule . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 29 August 2021; Ref: scu.184667