Yesterday, as is normal for a Friday morning, there was a packed courtroom in Glasgow Sheriff Court. This court was scheduled to deal with around 100 miscellaneous civil cases, including a number where parties were attending the court themselves as they did not have lawyers.
The Sheriff progressed quickly and efficiently through the morning’s business, taking care to explain to the unrepresented parties what was happening and working to, as the rules require, “secure the expeditious progress of the case”.
Early on came a lovely moment, which could only have occurred in the West of Scotland (and for those who point out it could have happened elsewhere, I disagree, so there!) Continue reading
Glasgow Sheriff Court has a very 21st century (or at least 20th Century) method of dealing with court actions under the Commercial Procedure. For disputes of a commercial nature, and if the pursuer in the action chooses to do so, there is a streamlined process designed to focus quickly on the issues in dispute and to reach a determination as quickly as possible.
This is achieved by having cases allocated to a particular Sheriff to take the dispute through all of its stages, and by having a procedural hearing (or Case Management Conference (CMC)) take place by conference call, rather than dragging lawyers from across the city or the country to the court to sit awaiting a slot in the diary.
Instead the nominated Sheriff assesses at an early stage what is in dispute in any case, and what each party is going to have to do to achieve victory. This can include the Sheriff pinning down solicitors as to the nature of a defence, or regarding witnesses to be called to court and the nature of the evidence they will give. The Sheriff can order production of expert reports and tell parties to have experts meet to clarify issues in dispute. Continue reading
The case raised by Ticketus LLP and Ticketus 2 LLP against Craig Whyte has been won by the plaintiffs. I will be writing about the judgement and what it tells us, if anything, about the future of Rangers, over the next couple of days.
I noticed a fact about the case which is of no significance but which, in the fevered imaginations of some, might provoke alarm, concern or conspiracy theories galore.
There is already a theory I have seen going round the blue bits of the internet (and to be fair not the more sensible end) noting that Craig Whyte was represented both personally and for his company by Harper MacLeod. Continue reading
The Daily Record today reports further dramatic developments in the battle for control of Rangers Football Club.
According to the Record Craig Whyte is pursuing his claims that Mr Green reneged on a deal they had agreed after the company which owned the football team went into administration.
Mr Whyte is looking for a piece of the pie, and a large one at that!
I will, as long as I can avoid being dragooned into gardening, go through what Mr Green was quoted as saying in the Sun yesterday in detail. That is not to say that he is necessarily right or wrong in what he alleges, but, as I explain below, Mr Whyte seems committed to this course of action, perhaps more than people might expect (and some of those in Ibrox might be surprised by his resolve too).
There are some points though which I think are worthy of note. Continue reading