Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
The sheriff principal, having resumed consideration of the cause, answers both questions of law in the stated case in the affirmative, refuses the appeal accordingly and adheres to the decree granted by the sheriff on 31st March 2008; finds no expenses due to or by either of the parties in respect of the appeal.
[3] At the first hearing Sheriff McLernan in accordance with rule 9.2(3) of the Small Claim Rules 2002 noted that there was no factual dispute at all between the parties and that (1) the sole issue was whether this court had jurisdiction, and (2) if jurisdiction was established, whether the defenders were protected from a payment obligation under the Convention.
[5] The defenders lodged a note of appeal against the sheriff's decision in which they stated that the points of law upon which the appeal was to proceed were:
Was the sheriff entitled in the circumstances to hold that the pursuers' claim for compensation for stress and inconvenience was allowable?
Esto such claim was allowable, was the sheriff entitled to find that the pursuers' claim for stress and inconvenience was not excessive or punitive?
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.