| Return to Views on Terrorism | |
|
CINTEC amends their claim to that of a partnership, and as Mr Justice Laddie notes: a partnership under Scots Law. MR. JUSTICE LADDIE: Before we do that, whether there is to be an adjournment or not, we ought to deal with the question of the application to amend the particulars of claim which was number 4. That is yours, Mr. Howe. I have seen the amended particulars of claim. Is this objected to? MR. HOWE: I am not certain whether it is objected to procedurally. Mr. Frost has arguments on substantive Scottish partnership law. Whether or not that is an argument that arises ----- MR. JUSTICE LADDIE: My question at the moment is whether the issue should be allowed to be pleaded. You are asking for permission to plead the paragraphs which refer to the agreement between Mr. Frost and Mr. Parkes. MR. HOWE: Yes. MR. JUSTICE LADDIE: Are you objecting to them pleading it? You may say they have got it all wrong. MR. FROST: No; we are very open-handed in terms of that. We do not have any objections. We would be seeking to amend our own pleadings too, my Lord, or application, or whatever it is. MR. JUSTICE LADDIE: OK. I will allow the application to amend the particulars of claim. Mr. Howe, in view of the time this is happening, is it really necessary to talk about terms of amending the defence? You are not going to get an amended defence, are you? |
|
| Return to opening page |