By Catherine Hart on 17/01/2008 21:04
Reparation - Third Party claims settled - Right of Relief - Constitution of the Debt essential prerequisite - NCB v Thomson followed The Pursuers/Appellants were the Defender/Respondent’s employers. The Pursuers offered to prove that, on two occasions, the Defender had driven a bus belonging to the Pursuers without exercising reasonable skill and care and, as a result, had collided with third party vehicles. The Pursuers had settled the third party claims on the ...
|
By Martin Crawford on 17/01/2008 13:30
Appeal – Court of Session – exclusion of appellant from respondents’ list of ophthalmic opticians. Tribunal decision that appellant had caused detriment to health scheme. Appellant was an ophthalmic optician held to have secured financial or other benefits from false and inaccurate claims on forms submitted to the respondents in respect of provision of spectacles to patients. Appeal on point of law. Appellant argued that all fraudulent acts took place seven years beforehand, £1 ...
|
By Rachel Henry on 10/01/2008 17:36
Reparation – This action related to a road traffic accident. Liability was admitted by the defenders and the only issue was the quantification of damages. While the proof ranged over a wide area, in their submissions counsel identified and focussed the matters in dispute and the court was able to concentrate on those relatively few issues. It was not in dispute that the pursuer's problems up to March 2006 could be attributed to the road traffic accident, and that after that date cervical s ...
|
By Rachel Henry on 10/01/2008 17:28
Proof – damages – The pursuer had a number of symptoms and complaints and eventually had to undergo an emergency operation after a diagnosis of a massive prolapsed inter-vertebral disc at L4/5 level, causing cauda equina syndrome. The defenders in this action were general practitioners in partnership. Three days before the pursuer's emergency operation, he was there seen by one of the defenders in connection with his acute complaints. The defenders failed to diagnose cauda equina syn ...
|
By Rachel Henry on 10/01/2008 14:24
Reparation – Motion for Issues – This action related to road accident on 17 April 2004 in which the pursuer sustained serious multiple injuries. He now sought damages from the defender who was driving the car which came into collision with his motor scooter. Liability was admitted by the defenders and the only issue was the quantification of damages. Here the pursuer enrolled a motion to allow issues for jury trial. The motion was opposed by the defenders. The competing submissions concerned t ...
|
By Catherine Hart on 06/12/2007 19:25
Action for Damages - The Occupiers' Liability (Scotland) Act 1960 - Failure to maintain Fence in Park - Contributory Negligence The Pursuer raised an action for damages against the Defenders under The Occupiers Liability (Scotland) Act 1960, sections 1 and 2 as owners and occupiers of her local park after she fell into a stream in the park in the early hours of 1st January 2000. She suffered bruising to her head, arms and body. She also fractured her cervical spine and required subsequent ...
|
By Euan Dow on 06/12/2007 16:59
Reclaiming Motion:- On 5 May 2001 a car driven by Miss Rogerson, the first defender, with her boyfriend Mr Thomson as the front seat passenger, and a three year old girl, Sarah Clegg, in the back seat, attempted to cross a level crossing. The crossing was operated by Network Rail, the second defenders. A train struck the car and Mr Thomson was killed and Sarah Clegg was seriously injured. Her parents, Mr and Mrs Clegg, the pursuers, were following in another car and in this action they sought da ...
|
By Euan Dow on 06/12/2007 16:21
Reparation - Additional Fee:- On behalf of the pursuer a motion was enrolled to allow inter alia an additional fee in terms of Rule of Court 42.14 (3) (a), (e) and (g). The motion, in relation to the additional fee only, was opposed by the defenders. It was submitted on behalf of the pursuer that (1) the circumstances of the case demonstrated complexity in that the particular type of medical negligence focussed upon was unusual and there was a difference of view even amongst the pursuer's own ex ...
|
By Euan Dow on 28/11/2007 18:42
Reparation - Debate:- In this action the pursuer sought damages in respect of alleged bullying and harassment at her work between early 2000 and late 2001. During that period the pursuer was employed as a prison guard by the Scottish Prison Service and her claim comprised solatium for anxiety, distress and psychiatric illness, together with a continuing loss of earnings in the period after she was medically signed off work from 31 October 2001. The pursuers case was based on: (1) a complaint aga ...
|
By Catherine Hart on 15/11/2007 20:31
Action for Damages - Pleadings - Relevancy and Specification - Protection from Harassment Act 1997 In an action for damages against his former employers, the Pursuer averred that he had been harassed by a fellow employee (H) to such an extent that he had suffered psychiatric illness. His claim was based on 3 grounds of action. He maintained that H’s conduct amounted to harassment in terms of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, for which the Defenders were vicariously liable. The Defe ...
|
| 1 2 |