: . OUction was raised in September 2002, and is principally founded upon alleged breaches of collateral undertakings which the respective defenders granted in the pursuers' favour relative to the conduct of the reconstruction works. In addition the pursuers assert a contractual right, by virtue of the same collateral undertakings, to be indemnified against the losses which they have sustained. [2] Since 2002 the action has had a chequered procedural history involving changes of front by the pursuers and, in parallel, a series of disputes arising out of the defenders' determined efforts to have the pursuers' claims dismissed or restricted on legal or procedural grounds. This latest pd4ml evaluation copy. visit takes the form of an opposed motion by the pursuers for amendment of their instance so as, for the first time, to state the trustee capacity in which they sue, and in order to set that dispute in its proper context it is convenient to begin with a brief outline of the prior procedural history of the case. [3] Following lengthy adjustment and amendment procedures, during which the pursuers temporarily made averments of loss based on the decision in Alfred McAlpine Construction Ltd v Panatown Ltd, 2001 1 . 518 ("Panatown"), a debate on the first and third defenders' preliminary pleas took place in the latter part of 2005. In essence, the issues raised at that debate concerned the pursuers' entitlement to claim disturbance and remedial costs where multiple relevant invoices had apparently been rendered to and paid by third parties. At that stage, the argument of the first and third defenders was formally directed to the relevancy of the pursuers' pleadings, and the pursuers' fundamental title and interest to pursue the action as a whole were not in issue. Fo
