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.
a company incorporated under the Companies Acts and having a place of business at
CUPAR, 16 February 2007. The Sheriff, having resumed consideration of the cause, Sustains the Defenders' first plea-in-law and Dismisses the action as irrelevant; Finds the Pursuer liable to the Defenders in the expenses of the Debate and of the cause, in so far as not already dealt with; Allows an account thereof to be given in and Remits the same, when lodged, to the Auditor of Court to tax and to report.
The defenders, who had nothing directly to do with the running of the hotel or the choice of furniture in it, are sued under Regulation 15 of the Package Travel, Package Holidays and Package Tours regulations 1992. This provides inter alia :-
It is not in dispute that, while the package holiday was booked in a local travel agency in Cupar, the defenders are the "other party to the contract" in terms of the regulations. It is averred on behalf of the pursuer (page 5, line 156ff of No 15 of Process):-
The matter came before me for Debate on the defenders' preliminary plea. Ms Nisbet appeared for the defenders and Mr McInnes for the pursuer.
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.