A preliminary proof was allowed before answer on the matters raised by the parties under section 19A as he considered that there should be an inquiry into specific material facts on which the parties were not agreed. These related to the pursuer’s prospects of success against his former English solicitors or counsel and his former Scottish solicitors, as well as the extent to which he would suffer inconvenience and delay in prosecuting an action against any of his previous advisers, even if he did have good prospects of success.
20 October 1995, unreported
England and Wales
Cited – David Lannigan v Glasgow City Council OHCS 12-Aug-2004
The pursuer said the teachers employed by the defendant had failed to identify that was dyslexic, leading him to suffer damage. The defenders said the claim was time barred, which the pursuer admitted, but then said that the claim ought to go ahead . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 May 2021; Ref: scu.200283