sheriff court Glasgow commercial debate lack of specification and relevancy.

Tweet

defender conducting own defence. IN GLASGOW SHERIFF COURT COMMERCIAL DIVISION. ( DEFENDER IS FORTH YEAR LAW STUDENT) DEFENDER IS BEING ACCUSED OF VARIOUS ISSUES BY DIRECTORS OF A COMPANY (PURSUERS) THAT HER HUSBAND ONCE OWNED. BOTH THE DEFENDER AND HUSBAND RESIGNED MARCH 2004 AS A RESULT OF THE TWO REMAINING DIRECTORS BREACH OF DIRECTORS DUTIES AND THEIR ABUSE OF POWER RELATING TO COMPANY DECISIONS. The defender still retains A 50% shareholding. The pursuers want it, but do not want to purchase it. They have raised action in court accusing defender of numerous BREACHES OF DUTY. from removing company information, stealing two mobile phones (hers and her husbands which were used for personal use only) MAINTAINING COMPANY INFO CONTAINED IN THEM. SHE HAS ALSO BEEN ACCUSED OF INDUCING MANY MEMBERS OF STAFF AWAY FROM COMPANY TO GO AND WORK FOR HUSBANDS NEW COMPANY. (THE DEFENDER INTENTIONALLY REQUESTED TO HER HUSBAND THAT SHE NOT BE INFORMED OF ANY DETAILS OF THE NEW COMP PRIOR TO HER RESIGNATION.) PURSUERS CLAIMING THAT SHE HAS CREATED A loss TO COMPANY BY WAY OF PROFITS AND SALES. THE DEFENDER NEVER AT ANY TIME WORKED IN THE COMPANY SINCE 2000 WHEN THE PRESENT DIRECTORS JOINED THE COMPANY. THE PURSUERS WOULD NOT ALLOW THE DEFENDER ANY FORM OF INFORMATION RELATING TO THE COMP SINCE DECEMBER 2000. THE DEFENDER WHIST A DIRECTOR AND MAJOR SHAREHOLDER HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED WITH COMP ACCOUNTS OR INVITED TO ANY FORM OF COMP. MEETING INCLUDING AGM FOR SIX YEARS. THE PURSUERS HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO AS YET PROVIDE THE COURT WITH CLEAR EVIDENCE OF THEIR AVERMENTS AGAINST THE DEFENDER DESPITE THE SHERIFF SENDING TEM AWAY ON AT LEAST TWO OCCASSIONS TO CLARIFY AND SPECIFY THEIR ALLEGATIONS CLEARLY. THIS TO DATE THEY HAVE NOT DONE. THEY HAVE NOT PROVIDED THE COURT WITH A CLEAR BREAKDOWN OF HOW THE DEFENDER CREATED THE lossES. NEITHER HAVE THEY PRODUCED COMP ACCOUNTS TO PROVE THE loss TO THE COMP. THEY HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO SPECIFY WITH ANY CLARITY ANY POINT TO DATE, BECAUSE THEY ARE LYING AND THE DEFENDER DID NOT RUN SCARED AND DID NOT BACK OFF. THE SHERIFF HAS NOW ORDERED A LEGAL DEBATE TO HEAR ARGUMENTS ON POINTS OF LAW. MY ARGUMENT WILL BE ON THE LACK OF SPECIFICATION AND RELEVANCY WITH AN ARGUMENT OF LACK OF FOUNDATION. I NEED ADVICE ON HOW TO ARGUE THIS, WITH SOME HELP ON ANY CASE LAW AND LEGAL AUTHORITIES THAT WOULD BE RELLAVANT TO USE TO HELP MY ARGUMENT. I LISTENED TO A RECENT SHORT DEBATE WHERE THE DEFENDER REFERED TO JAMIESON V JAMIESON AND AND A CASE CONCERNING EADIE CAIRNS. CAN ANYBODY OUT THERE HELP ME. I COULD REALLY DO WITH SOME ASSISTANCE. I HAVE THE ADVANTAGE OF HAVING ACCESS TO THE LAW LIBRARY AT UNI. I JUST DONT KNOW WHAT TO LOOK FOR.