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 >> Pinnacle Cloud Solutions Ltd v Braveheart Technology Ltd & Ors [2014] ScotCS CSOH_154 (28 October 2014) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/2014/[2014]CSOH154.html Cite as: [2014] ScotCS CSOH_154 |
[New search] [Help]
OUTER HOUSE, COURT OF SESSION
[2014] CSOH 154
CA90/14
OPINION OF LORD TYRE
In the cause
PINNACLE CLOUD SOLUTIONS LIMITED
Pursuer;
against
BRAVEHEART TECHNOLOGY LIMITED AND OTHERS
Defenders:
Pursuer: McBrearty QC; Wright Johnston & Mackenzie LLP
First Defender: McShane; Morton Fraser LLP
Second, Third and Fourth Defenders: No appearance
28 October 2014
[1] This action arises out of the same circumstances as another action (CA91/14) at the pursuer’s instance against a company formerly called Kathellan Limited and now called MacLellan Property Limited. Those circumstances are set out in my opinion in that action, issued of even date with this opinion.
[2] A proof was allowed in both actions in respect of three matters, including a conclusion added by amendment in this action for decree ordaining the first defender to deliver up or otherwise disclose to the pursuer certain IT usernames and passwords. The proof took place on 14 and 15 August 2014 and I heard parties’ submissions on 22 August. In the course of the hearing of evidence, an individual was identified who, it was thought, could provide the information sought regarding the IT usernames and passwords. During the period between the hearing of evidence and submissions, that individual was contacted and did indeed provide the necessary information. For this reason, senior counsel for the pursuer intimated that he no longer required to seek decree in terms of the conclusion in the present action that had been allowed to proof. It is therefore unnecessary for me to make any findings or pronounce any order at this time.
[3] I shall put this case out by order along with the related action to be addressed on expenses and any further procedure.