BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Scottish Court of Session Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Burnside Kemp Fraser & Ors v Gaffney Or Ross [1999] ScotCS 205 (31 August 1999) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1999/205.html Cite as: [1999] ScotCS 205 |
||
[New search] [Help]
|
OUTER HOUSE, COURT OF SESSION
|
|
|
CA153/14/97
|
OPINION OF LORD HAMILTON
in the cause
BURNSIDE KEMP FRASER AND OTHERS
Pursuers;
against
MRS JANE MARGARET GAFFNEY OR ROSS
Defender:
________________
|
Pursuers: Smith, Q.C.; Balfour & Manson
Defenders: McLean; John G Gray & Co, S.S.C.
31 August 1999
In this action the defender is the widow of one of the men killed in the disaster of 14 March 1992. She is sued as an individual and as the guardian of their children. Insofar as concerns the relevancy of the pursuers' pleadings on the merits, the circumstances of this case are identical with those in Burnside Kemp Fraser v Roe. Although the formulation of the defender's pleadings relative to the plea of forum non conveniens in this action (one of the John G Gray actions) differs from that of the defenders in Burnside Kemp Fraser v Robb, the discussion of that plea as it applies in all the actions has been dealt with in that Opinion.
For the reasons given in that Opinion and in my Opinion in Burnside Kemp Fraser v Roe I shall repel the defender's second plea-in-law (forum non conveniens) and sustain her third plea-in-law to the extent of excluding from probation the pursuers' averments in article 4 of the condescendence from "All of the Solicitors" to "enter into the foregoing agreement". The case will be put out By Order for discussion of the matters referred to in the final paragraph of my Opinion in Burnside Kemp Fraser v Robb.
