Personal Injury

MacDonald v Bruce – Cupar Sheriff Court, 8 August 2008

Wed, 03 Sep 2008 18:57:00 GMT

The Pursuer, aged 49 at Proof, sought damages following a road accident. Liability was admitted and the Proof was restricted to quantum. The Pursuer suffered a whiplash injury to his neck and was left with intermittent neck pain and headaches. These settled within 7 months of the accident. For 6 weeks he also suffered severe low back pain and right elbow pain. A cut to his head and bruising healed within 2 weeks. For 12 weeks after the accident the Pursuer suffered low moods and travel anxiety with flashbacks.He slept badly for 2 weeks and put on weight. He was absent from work for 10 days and couldn’t drive during that time. The Pursuer had to stop going to the gym and gave up marathon running for 4 to 5 months. He was prescribed pain killers by his GP but was not hospitalised and did not receive physiotherapy. The Pursuer had made a full recovery after 7 months. He sought an award of solatium of £2,750 and referred the Sheriff to a number of cases in support of this. The Defender argued that a more appropriate award would be around £1,600 to £1,700. The Sheriff expressed the view that some of the English authorities cited by the Defender were too low to be in line with the majority of cases in Scotland. In his view, the yard stick was Sheriff Principal Bowen’s persuasive decision in Symington v Milne (Edinburgh Sheriff Court 4 May 2007) in which the Sheriff Principal commented that, while older cases might serve as a guide, awards for whiplash injuries may now be proportionally higher than some years ago due to a greater awareness of the debilitating effect of that type of injury.

Thomas Renfrew v. Lithgows Limited and Others [2008] CSOH 118

Tue, 19 Aug 2008 18:17:00 GMT

Proof:- The pursuer was employed as a painter in the shipyards by the first defenders between 1959 and 1969 and by the second defenders between 1970 and 1973 when he was exposed to asbestos dust causing mesothelioma. In this action the pursuer sought damages for personal injury in respect of the disease. The defenders admitted liability and the only issue was quantum. It is expected that the pursuer will die during 2008. The main question the court had to consider was how long the pursuer would have lived had it not been for him developing mesothelioma. This was complicated by the pursuer suffering from an unconnected vascular disease. It was the pursuer's position that the vascular condition would not have affected his lfe expectancy whereas the defenders submitted that the condition would have. Here the court considered what the pursuer's life expectancy would have been had it not been for him developing mesothelioma.

Michael Cunningham v. Glasgow City Council [2008] CSOH 113

Thu, 14 Aug 2008 08:17:00 GMT

Personal Injury:- In this action the pursuer, a principal teacher in Glasgow, raised an action against his employers for (1) loss, injury and damage caused by the defenders' failure to take reasonable care for his health and safety; and (2) breaches by named employees of Section 8 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 for which the defenders were vicariously liable. Here the defenders enrolled a motion to remit the cause from Chapter 43 procedure to allow the action to proceed as an ordinary action in respect that there were exceptional reasons justifying withdrawal of the cause from Chapter 43 rules. It was submited on behalf of the defenders that:- (1) the action was not properly to be regarded as a personal injuries action falling under Chapter 43 procedure; and (2) that the test for withdrawal was "exceptional reasons" and such a test had been satisfied in the present case on the grounds that lengthy written pleadings will be necessary and issues of both liability and causation were complex. It was submitted on behalf of the pursuer that there were no exceptional reasons to justify the withdrawal of the case from Chapter 43 procedure. Here the court considered whether such "exceptional reasons" existed.

Thomas Ruddy v. Monte Marco and Others [2008] CSIH 47

Wed, 30 Jul 2008 10:42:00 GMT

Reclaiming motion:- On 7 March 2008 the Lord Ordinary granted decree against the first defender for payment of a sum of damages to the pursuer following proof in respect of a claim for personal injuries. The second defenders were assoilzied. It is against that interlocutor the first defender reclaimed. The question raised by the first defender here was whether the attribution by the Lord Ordinary of personal liability to the first defender as being the employer of the pursuer in relation to the work in question was correct. It was submitted on behalf of the first defender that the proper inference to draw from the evidence at proof was that the pursuer's contract of employment was with the second defenders and that the first defender was not the individual employer with individual responsibility for the premises. It was submitted on behalf of the respondent that the Lord Ordinary was entitled to come to the conclusion which he reached. Here the court considered whether the Lord Ordinary, having heard the evidence, in particular the first defender's evidence, reached the correct decision.

Spencer-Franks (Appellant) v Kellogg Brown and Root Limited and others (Respondents) (Scotland), [2008] UKHL 46

Wed, 02 Jul 2008 12:36:00 GMT

In 2003, the pursuer was employed as a mechanical technician by Kellogg Brown and Root Ltd (“KBR”), then a subsidiary of Halliburton which supplies services to the offshore oil industry. KBR contracted to supply workers to operate the Tartan Alpha platform in the Scottish sector of the North Sea, which was operated by Talisman Energy (UK) Ltd (“Talisman”). The pursuer was one of the workers which KBR supplied to work on the platform.

In October 2003, the closer on the door of the central control room was not working properly and the appellant was asked to inspect and repair it. In the course of removing the closer to take it away for repair, the appellant half turned a screw which held the linkage arm to the door frame. This should not have disengaged the screw. However, the screw pulled out and the arm struck the pursuer in the face. He lost four teeth which had to be replaced by implants.

The pursuer raised an action against KBR and Talisman in the sheriff court claiming that each of them had been in breach of its obligations under the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 (“the equipment regulations”).

The pursuer submitted that the incident was covered by the equipment regulations as the door closer was a piece of machinery or apparatus for use at work. The defenders took pleas to the relevancy on the ground that the door closer could not be work equipment within the meaning of the regulations.

The sheriff sustained the plea of KBR, the employer, on the ground that although the door closer was “work equipment", the employer had no control over it and the regulations therefore did not impose responsibility upon it. On the other hand, Talisman, the operator, did have control. He therefore repelled their plea to the relevancy and allowed the pursuer’s proof.

Both the pursuer and Talisman appealed. The Second Division of the Court of Session, took the view that the door closer was not “work equipment” or, even if it was, that the pursuer was not “using” it within the meaning of the regulations. They therefore dismissed the pursuer’s appeal and allowed KBR’s appeal.

The pursuer appealed to the House of Lords.

The House of Lords held (unanimously) that the door closer was work equipment and that the appellant was using the door closer when he was injured. The work equipment regulations used the words “for use at work.” The door in question was used to enter and exit the control room and everyone using the control room was using it for the purposes of their work. Consequently, the closer attached to that door was work equipment. The door closer did not cease to be work equipment because it had broken down or was being repaired.

The House of Lords went on to hold that it could not be excluded by some implied qualification. For example, it rejected the argument that the equipment regulations impliedly excluded apparatus which formed part of the premises upon which the work took place. The House of Lords noted that this might have been a good argument for ordinary work premises on land but not for equipment which was attached to an offshore platform. Reference was made to Regulation 5(1) of the Offshore Installations (Operational Safety, Health and Welfare) Regulations 1976.

The House of Lords allowed the appeal, recalled the interlocutors of the Court of Session and the Sheriff and allowed the parties a proof.

Matthew Oliver v UK Insurance Limited – Aberdeen Sheriff Court, 14 May 2008

Wed, 25 Jun 2008 19:24:00 GMT

The Pursuer sought damages for injuries he sustained in a road accident. The Defenders admitted that their Insured was responsible for the accident but disputed the value of the Pursuer’s claim and a Proof on quantum took place. The Pursuer suffered soft tissue injuries to both shoulders, strains of the cervical spine and the thoracic spine, mild burns to his right hand, headaches and dizziness, parasthesia of both hands and short term shock. His back pain settled after a few weeks, but he continued suffering from neck and shoulder pain for about 6 months after the accident. His headaches lasted for a week or two, although the dizziness disappeared within days. The parasthesia in his hands settled after a few days. The neck and shoulder pain caused the Pursuer discomfort and he had difficulty sleeping. He couldn’t pursue his hobbies of badminton and rock climbing for several weeks. At the time of the Proof, the Pursuer continued to suffer anxiety when driving and he had also suffered flashbacks. The medical evidence was agreed and the Pursuer was the only witness at the Proof. The Pursuer suggested that the value of his claim was £3,000 - £3,500. The Defenders argued that the appropriate sum was around £1,600. The Sheriff awarded the Pursuer £2,500 in relation to his neck, back and shoulder pain. He also awarded £100 for minor burns, £100 for headaches and dizziness, £100 for parasthesia in the hands and £300 for shock, anxiety and flashbacks. The total sum awarded was £3,100, with interest at 4% a year from the date of the accident.

Elizabeth Nolan v. First Glasgow Limited [2008] CSOH 86

Wed, 11 Jun 2008 13:32:00 GMT

Reparation - Proof:- On 12 April 2005 the pursuer was travelling as a passenger on a single decker bus owned and operated by the defenders through the centre of Glasgow. At around 5.30p.m. a bus, also owned and operated by the defenders, collided with the back of the pursuer's stationary bus. As a result of the collision the pursuer was thrown forward causing injury to her neck, shoulder and right arm. An x-ray disclosed no bone break and she was referred for physiotherapy and advised to consult her general medical practitioner. At the time of the accident, the pursuer was employed full time with the Abbey Bank where she had worked since 1987 and had been full time for twelve years. After the accident, the pursuer did not return to work until 18 April 2006. On her return the pursuer started working reduced hours, initially two and then three days per week. This was then increased to four days before reducing it again to three days, the level at which she presently works. In this action liability was admitted by the defenders and the only issue in dispute was the quantification of damages.

Ann Catherine Hylands v. Glasgow City Council

Thu, 29 May 2008 09:02:00 GMT

Personal Injury:- The pursuer was injured at work when a partition fell and struck her on the back. The pursuer's agents intimated a claim against the defenders and, following an additional intimation, the defenders repudiated liability. The pursuer's agent then asked the defenders to reconsider their position and again liability was repudiated. On 10 January 2008 a summons was signeted. The sum concluded for was £10,000. The summons was served on the defenders on 23 January. On 7 March defences and a tender were lodged; the tender was for payment of £2,500 with expenses to date in full satisfaction of the conclusions of the summons. That tender was accepted. On 18 April the defenders enrolled a motion under Rule 42.5 of the Rules of Court for modification of the pursuer's expenses to the summary cause scale in the sheriff court, without certification for counsel.

Kerry Ramage as Legal Representative of her child Beth Ramage (Assisted Person) v. Scottish African Safari Park Limited [2008] CSOH 68

Tue, 13 May 2008 08:06:00 GMT

Personal Injury - Motion for Issues:- On 28 July 2002 the pursuer took her 19 month old daughter, Beth, to Blair Drummond Safari Park which was owned and occupied by the defenders. The pursuer claimed that during the course of the visit her daughter's arm came into contact with animal faeces, which then came into contact with her mouth, and she was exposed to E coli 0157 and subsequently developed certain medical conditions. Damages were claimed on the basis that there was fault on the part of the defenders at common law and in breach of Regulations 6, 7 and 12 of the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1999. The action was defended on liability and quantum. Here the pursuer sought the allowance of issues to enable the action to proceed to a jury trial. The motion was opposed on behalf of the defenders. It was submitted on behalf of the defenders that special cause existed for refusing the pursuer's motion for the allowance of issues. On behalf of the pursuers it was submitted that the case was one which could be properly decided by a jury as appropriate directions could be given to the jury. Here the court considered the relevancy of the pursuer's case at common law in deciding whether it was a case suitable for jury trial.

Frank William Fletcher as Guardian of Lisa Smart v Christopher Lunan [2008] CSOH 55

Thu, 24 Apr 2008 08:28:00 GMT

Personal Injury: Contravention of Section 2 of the Road Traffic Act 1998: Miss Smart suffered a serious head injury as a result of being hit by a car driven by the defender. Prior to the proof the defenders admitted liability and the parties agreed that the degree of contributory negligence would be assessed at 15%. The defender has made two interim payments to the pursuer, one of £150,000 and one of £100,000. The pursuer now seeks interim damages of an additional £500,000.

William Spence v Chap Construction Limited 25/02/2008

Mon, 21 Apr 2008 18:57:00 GMT

Personal Injury: The matter came before the sheriff as a result of a pursuer's motion to be allowed to amend the Record in terms of a Minute of Amendment. The defenders did not oppose items 1 and 2 of the Minute of Amendment but opposed the rest based on the argument that the new matter was being introduced at a very late stage in the procedure.

Elsie Hampton & Anthony Stephen Hampton v. First Group plc trading as First Bus [2008] CSOH 59

Thu, 10 Apr 2008 11:42:00 GMT

Personal Injury - Proof:- In this action the pursuers sought damages after the first pursuer was knocked down on Princess Street in Edinburgh on 19 October 2003. The pursuers had been out for dinner together on the Sunday evening in question when they crossed Princes Street at its junction with Lothian Road. The first pursuer was hit by a double-decker bus and suffered serious injuries including two skull fractures, a fracture under her left eye-socket, an intracranial haemorrhage, and an elbow injury. The second pursuer, who witnesses the accident from a short distance away suffered as a result. The pursuers sought damages against the driver of the bus's employers and the case proceeded to a conjoined proof on liability only. Here the court considered whether the pursuers had established the negligence of the bus driver to the requisite standard of proof.

Steven Gray v ASA Autohouse GMBH & Co – Edinburgh Sheriff Court, 13 March 2008

Wed, 09 Apr 2008 14:38:00 GMT

Damages - Solatium - Muscle strain in neck and backache - Whether appropriate to value Solatium on basis of whiplash injury

The Pursuer, a mechanical engineer aged 25 at Proof, was injured in a road traffic accident. Liability was admitted but quantum was in dispute. The Pursuer experienced immediate pain in his neck after the collision and was taken to A&E where he was diagnosed with muscle strain and given painkillers. He continued to experience neck pain for about 6 months and also had symptoms of backache. After that, the Pursuer made a full physical recovery. He had to take about a week off work after the accident and was given light duties for 4 or 5 weeks after his return. The Pursuer was unable to play football for about 6 months following the accident. He had to drive past the scene of the accident on his way to work every day and he experienced feelings of apprehension about this. Following a Proof, the Sheriff awarded solatium of £1,650. When addressing the Sheriff on solatuim, the Pursuer’s Solicitor had referred to a number of cases in which the claimants had suffered whiplash injury. The Sheriff did not consider it appropriate to assume that the Pursuer had suffered a whiplash injury and proceeded on the basis that he had suffered a muscle strain associated with symptoms of backache. The expression “whiplash injury” referred to a specific type of injury and the Sheriff had not heard evidence to support that diagnosis. The medical report, the terms of which had been agreed, stated that the Pursuer had been diagnosed with a muscle strain. The Pursuer’s reaction to passing the scene of the accident seemed to the Sheriff to be no more than a normal reaction and the Pursuer had not established a claim for psychological injury.

Patricia Welsh v. Neil Brady [2008] CSOH 45

Thu, 20 Mar 2008 17:05:00 GMT

Personal Injury - Proof:- In the case the pursuer, a consultant orthopaedic surgeon, sought damages for a severe injury to her right knee when she collided with the defender's labrador whilst she was walking her golden retriever in a field near the village of Wellbank on 14 March 2005. In the case damages were agreed at £160,000 and the only issue was limited to the question of whether the defender was liable to the pursuer. It was submitted on behalf of the pursuer that liability was established under the Animals (Scotland) Act 1987 which failing by way of common law negligence on the part of the defender. It was further submitted that the injury suffered by the pursuer was directly referable to the conduct of the animal that was under the control of the defender and the defender was strictly liable for the injury to the pursuer and there was no need to prove negligence, however, it was submitted that the evidence established that the defender had failed to take reasonable care for the safety of the pursuer. It was submitted on behalf of the defender that apart from attacks by dogs, liability for injury caused by dogs rests on common law fault and in the present case the defender did not act carelessly given both dogs were off their leads at the time of the collision and the defender did not act in a negligent manner. Here the court considered whether the failure by the defender to put a lead on his dog when the pursuer came in to view amounted to negligence.

Montgomery Steven v Direct Line Insurance plc – Edinburgh Sheriff Court, 14 December, 2007

Thu, 17 Jan 2008 20:55:00 GMT

Reparation - Damages - Solatium - Minor Injuries to upper back, neck, chest and shoulder; anxiety when driving

The Pursuer sought damages for injuries he suffered as a result of a road traffic accident in November, 2005. His stationary vehicle was struck from behind by a vehicle for which the Defenders were insurers in terms of the Road Traffic Act 1988. Liability was admitted. At the time of the Proof, the Pursuer was 62 years old. Following the accident, he experienced initial shock and began to develop pain and stiffness in his upper back, neck, chest and shoulder. He also developed bruising on his upper chest, which settled in a week. The discomfort in his chest resolved after 2 weeks. The Pursuer did not have to take any time off work, although he felt discomfort while driving. The Pursuer attended his GP a week after the accident complaining of pain and stiffness in his neck and upper back. He continued to experience this pain for 4-5 weeks after the accident, although his symptoms resolved fully 3 months after the accident. The Pursuer had to take painkillers for about a month after the accident. He was anxious and hyper vigilant when driving, although did not seek any medical treatment or assistance in relation to this. The Pursuer was unable to pursue his hobbies of playing bowls and pheasant shooting for about a month after the accident. The Sheriff awarded the sum of £1,600 as Solatium, all of which was allocated to the past, with interest at half the judicial rate from the date of the accident until four months after that date and, thereafter, at the full judicial rate.

William Lees v North Lanarkshire Council [2008] CSOH 8

Thu, 17 Jan 2008 13:31:00 GMT

Proof – personal injuries – liability only disputed-inferences drawn from pleadings. Case involved an incident where pursuer fell on footpath, the maintenance for which defenders responsible. Disputed whether defect was hazard to safety; if so, should it have been identified/repaired by defenders’ system of inspection; whether any contributory negligence. It was considered whether the knowledge of the street and its poor condition increased the duty on the pursuer to take care for his own safety. Defenders found liable with 40% contribution by pursuer.

Fiona Smith v. Madeline Hughes & Home Concern (Scotland) Limited [2007] CSOH 199

Wed, 19 Dec 2007 18:02:00 GMT

Reparation - Motion for Issues:- In this action the pursuer sought damages as reparation for personal injury she sustained in a road traffic accident on 30 July 2004. 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. It was submitted on behalf of the pursuer that any party has a statutory right to a jury trial unless "special cause" exists in not allowing issues. In deciding between proof or jury trial the court had to consider which type of tribunal would best secure justice between the parties. On behalf of the defenders it was submitted that the pursuer's pleadings gave no specification of basis for claims for (1) prospects of further promotion; and (2) past and future necessary services and the pursuer had failed to give sufficient specification of her claim in the pleadings. It was submitted on behalf of the pursuer that the pleadings in the present case complied with the relevant rules and "special cause" means some real ground of substance making the cause unsuitable for jury trial which had not been made out in the present case on behalf of the defenders. Here the court considered whether issues should be allowed on the pleadings in their present form and, if not, whether any deficiency in the pursuer's pleadings, for example, in relation to whether the pursuer had given sufficient specification in relation to the heads of damages he sought could be cured by amendment.

Leanne Hendry v. Alexander Taylor & Sons & NIG Insurance Limited [2007] CSOH 178

Tue, 13 Nov 2007 18:50:00 GMT

Personal Injury - Specification of Documents & Diligence:- In this action the pursuer sought damages following a car accident in which she blamed the defenders' employee. Liability was admitted and the only remaining issue was the quantification of damages. The defenders lodged a specification of documents and applied for a commission and diligence. Two of the three calls were opposed. The basis of the objection was that the calls were not limited to medical records dating from the accident but they also related to the pre accident medical records. On behalf of the pursuer it was submitted that this amounted to a fishing exercise and the specification should be refused. On behalf of the defender it was submitted that it was necessary to establish whether the pursuer was suffering from a pre existing medical condition at the time of the accident as any such pre-existing condition would be material to the proper quantification of her future loss claim. Here the court considered whether to grant the commission and diligence in terms of the calls in the specification.

Dale McFarlane v. Barry Thain & James Campbell & The Motor Insurers Bureau [2007] CSOH 176

Tue, 13 Nov 2007 18:49:00 GMT

Personal Injury - Proof Before Answer:- On 17 June 1999 the pursuer was the pillion passenger on a motor cycle being driven by is friend, the first defender, who was uninsured. The motor cyle collided with a motor car being driven by a 67 year old man, the second defender. Due to the first defender not being insured the Motor Insurers Bureau entered the proceedings as minuters. As a result of the crash the pursuer was thrown some distance from the motor cylce, his crash helmet came off and he suffered a head injury and a broken leg. The MIB disputed liability on the ground that the pursuer had known that the motorcyclist was uninsured, unlicensed and had been drinking before the accident. Further, both the second defender and the MIB plead contributory negligence on the part of the pursuer as the pursuer failed in his duty to wear a properly fastened crash helmet. A proof before answer took place on the issue of liability. Here the court considered the evidence that was led and formed the view that the primary cause of the accident was the speed at which the motor cycle was travelling having regard to the particular circumstances and inherent hazards at the locus at the time of the accident. In addition, the court considered what, if any, blame was to be attributed to the second defender. The court also considered the issue of contributory negligence particularly in light of the evidence that was led in relation to the pursuers unfastened crash helmet.

Anne McGregor v. LMRS Farm Limited [2007] CSOH 153

Tue, 11 Sep 2007 11:27:22 GMT

Reparation - Liability:- On 28 The pursuer was injured when she was thrown from a horse during a riding lesson at the defenders' premises on 2 April 2005. Damages were agreed in the sum of £30,000 and the only issued to be determined was liability. The central arguement in the pursuer's case was that she should not have been given the horse in question for the lesson she was attending on the day of the accident because it was a new class, a new instructor and a new horse which had been used by more experienced riders in the past. Here the court considered, in the particular circumstances of the busy Saturday morning, whether the decision to place the pursuer on the particular horse was negligent.

Agnes Buckley Wilson v. Glasgow City Council [2007] CSOH 143

Tue, 11 Sep 2007 11:25:41 GMT

Proof - Reparation:- On 4 May 1999 the pursuer sustained injuries as a result of a fall on a flight of stairs as she walked to her car to drive to her night shift. On Record the pursuer averred that several steps on the last flight were loose. She claimed that the loose steps wobbled and moved underfoot when she stood on them and she lost her footing on a loose step and fell causing a head injury and a compound fracture to the neck of the left humerus. In the action quantum was agreed and the proof proceeded solely on liability. At proof a number of issues arose:- (1) whether the pursuer fell on the stairs; (2) whether the pursuer lost her footing on a loose step and (3) whether the defenders knew or ought to have known of any defect. Here the court considered whether the defenders knew or ought to have known that there was a defect which constituted a hazard to persons using the stairway and whether it was reasonably foreseeable that a person using the stairs, such as the pursuer, would fall and sustain injuries.

Susanna Bell v. North Ayrshire Council [2007] CSOH 144

Tue, 11 Sep 2007 10:24:00 GMT

Proof - Reparation:- On 24 May 2003 the pursuer was visiting her friend who rented her home from the defenders. Whilst trying to open a window the pursuer's hands slipped and they went through the glass. She blamed the defenders for the accident and sought damages for the injuries she sustained. Prior to proof parties agreed that the value of the claim was £17,500. The window was stiff and had been reported to the defenders and the window was said to be a danger in terms of section 2 of the Occupiers' Liability (Scotland) Act 1960 and the defenders were said to be in breach of their duties under s.3 of the 1960 Act. The key issue in dispute was whether the pursuer's friend "Ms McLaughlan" had, prior to 24 May 2003, reported to the defenders that the window was stiff and had requested that they repair it.

James Gibson Baillie v. ECG Group Limited

Thu, 23 Aug 2007 00:00:00 GMT

Accident At Work/ Issues:

Linda Berry v. McCowans Limited

Thu, 23 Aug 2007 00:00:00 GMT

Accident At Work:

Lindsay Smith (Petitioner) for Judicial review of a Decision by the Committee of The Nairn Golf Club [2007] CSOH 136

Tue, 31 Jul 2007 00:00:00 GMT

Judicial Review

Tony Reid v Sundolitt Limited [2007] CSIH 64

Fri, 27 Jul 2007 00:00:00 GMT

Appeal

Morag Lawson v The Broomfield Holiday Park A134/03

Fri, 13 Jul 2007 00:00:00 GMT

Reparation –

Peter Rainford v. Aberdeenshire Council [2007] CSOH 127

Thu, 12 Jul 2007 23:00:00 GMT

Proof - Reparation

Gavin Slessor v. Vetco Gray UK Limited & Others [2007] CSOH 130

Thu, 12 Jul 2007 22:00:00 GMT

Reparation - Issues

Graeme Carling v. W.P. Bruce Limited [2007] CSOH 119

Tue, 10 Jul 2007 00:00:00 GMT

Reparation

Mr. Ben Brouwers v. Mr. Raymond David Tartaglia [2007] CSOH 115

Fri, 06 Jul 2007 00:00:00 GMT

Reparation - Prescription - Procedure Roll

Mr. Ben Brouwers v. Mr. Raymond David Tartaglia [2007] CSOH 115

Fri, 06 Jul 2007 00:00:00 GMT

Reparation - Prescription - Procedure Roll

John Strachan v. Railtrack plc [2007] CSOH 100

Wed, 13 Jun 2007 00:00:00 GMT

Motion to Allow Amendment of the Closed Record - Reparation

Thomas Weatherstone v. T. Graham & Son (Builders) Limited [2007] CSOH 94

Thu, 07 Jun 2007 00:00:00 GMT

Proof - Reparation

Graham Robertson v. Glasgow City Council [2007] CSOH 89

Tue, 29 May 2007 00:00:00 GMT

Proof - Reparation

Margaret Hughes v. Grampian Country Food Group Limited [2007] CSIH 32

Fri, 18 May 2007 00:00:00 GMT

Reclaiming Motion - Personal Injury

John Dillon v. Inverclyde Leisure [2007] CSOH 82

Thu, 10 May 2007 23:00:00 GMT

Proof – Reparation

Lynn Symington v. Emma Milne

Fri, 04 May 2007 00:00:00 GMT

Appeal to Sheriff Principal

Alexander Bloomfield Wilson v. BAE Systems plc [2007] CSOH 79

Thu, 26 Apr 2007 00:00:00 GMT

Proof - Reparation

Clayton Robertson v. Horses in Scotland Limited [2007] CSOH 68

Tue, 03 Apr 2007 00:00:00 GMT

Proof - Reparation

John O'Donnell v. Sheila MacLean [2007] CSOH 62

Fri, 23 Mar 2007 00:00:00 GMT

Reparation - Personal Injury

Gavin Slessor v. Vetco Gray UK Ltd & c [2007] CSOH 59

Fri, 23 Mar 2007 00:00:00 GMT

Motion for summary decree - Reparation

Philomena Maria Goreti Hutchison v. North Lanarkshire Council [2007] CSOH 23

Wed, 07 Feb 2007 00:00:00 GMT

Proof - Personal Injury

James Gibson v. Kevin Colin Whyte [2007] CSOH 17

Tue, 06 Feb 2007 00:00:00 GMT

Proof - Personal Injury

Donna O'Halloran v. Ciba Speciality Chemicals plc [2007] CSOH 19

Fri, 02 Feb 2007 00:00:00 GMT

Proof - Personal Injury

James Love v North Lanarkshire Council {2007} CSOH 10

Tue, 23 Jan 2007 00:00:00 GMT

Proof

Andrew Leslire v Babcock Engineering Services Limited [2007] CSOH 09

Fri, 19 Jan 2007 00:00:00 GMT

Procedure roll

Derek Burnett v Grampian Fire and Rescue Service

Tue, 09 Jan 2007 00:00:00 GMT

Debate

Gloria Jean Urquhart v Fife Primary Care NHS Trust[2007] CSOH 02

Tue, 09 Jan 2007 00:00:00 GMT

Proof –

Ms Kathleen Hutton v. Simon JackAppeal to Sheriff Principal:-

Tue, 19 Dec 2006 00:00:00 GMT

Following a proof between 7 March 2006 and 9 March 2006, relating to a road traffic accident, the sheriff pronounced an interlocutor finding the respondent liable to the appellant in the sum of £750 with expenses restricted to £75 on the small claims scal

Helen Given v. James Watt College [2006] CSOH 189

Wed, 13 Dec 2006 00:00:00 GMT

Proof Before Answer- Reparation - Accident at Work

Amy Whitehead's Legal Representative v. Graeme John Douglas and Another [2006] CSOH 178

Mon, 20 Nov 2006 00:00:00 GMT

Commission and Diligence of material referred to i

Samantha Baird v. Graham Cowie [2006] CSOH 168

Fri, 27 Oct 2006 00:00:00 GMT

Personal Injury Action - Proof or Jury Trial

Andrew Godfrey v. Quarriers [2006] CSOH 160

Tue, 10 Oct 2006 00:00:00 GMT

Procedure Roll - Prescription

Stephen Findleton v. Quarriers [2006] CSOH 157

Tue, 10 Oct 2006 00:00:00 GMT

Procedure Roll - Prescription

David Whelan v. Quarriers & John Porteous [2006] CSOH 159

Tue, 10 Oct 2006 00:00:00 GMT

Procedure Roll - Prescription

Andrew Godfrey v. Quarriers [2006] CSOH 160

Tue, 10 Oct 2006 00:00:00 GMT

Procedure Roll - Prescription

Colin Findleton v. Quarriers [2006] CSOH 161

Tue, 10 Oct 2006 00:00:00 GMT

Procedure Roll - Prescription

George King v. Quarriers [2006] CSOH 158

Tue, 10 Oct 2006 00:00:00 GMT

Procedure Roll - Prescription

Moira King v. Quarriers [2006] CSOH 156

Tue, 10 Oct 2006 00:00:00 GMT

Procedure Roll - Prescription

Moira King v. Quarriers [2006] CSOH 156

Tue, 10 Oct 2006 00:00:00 GMT

Procedure Roll - Prescription

Stephen Findleton v. Quarriers [2006] CSOH 157

Tue, 10 Oct 2006 00:00:00 GMT

Procedure Roll - Prescription

Colin Findleton v. Quarriers [2006] CSOH 161

Tue, 10 Oct 2006 00:00:00 GMT

Procedure Roll - Prescription

George King v. Quarriers [2006] CSOH 158

Tue, 10 Oct 2006 00:00:00 GMT

Procedure Roll - Prescription

David Whelan v. Quarriers & John Porteous [2006] CSOH 159

Tue, 10 Oct 2006 00:00:00 GMT

Procedure Roll - Prescription

James Walsh v. TNT UK Limited [2006] CSOH 149

Tue, 19 Sep 2006 00:00:00 GMT

Proof - Personal Injury Action

Lewis John Anderson v. Robert Kelman t/a Ailsa Wood Products [2006] CSOH 135

Tue, 05 Sep 2006 00:00:00 GMT

Personal Injury Action - Opposed Motion for Jury T

Morag Jean Holtes v. Aberdeenshire Council [2006] CSOH 134

Tue, 05 Sep 2006 00:00:00 GMT

Proof - Reparation

Sinead Grade Dodds (AP) v. Baron Davidson of Glen Cova, QC, The Advocate General for Scotland as Representing the MOD [2006] CSOH NUMBER 132

Tue, 29 Aug 2006 00:00:00 GMT

Proof - Reparation

Brian Rodgers v. Colin Hutton Group Coachworks Ltd [2006] CSOH 126

Wed, 16 Aug 2006 00:00:00 GMT

Proof - Personal Injury Action - Causation

Andrew Logie as Guardian of the Child Wayne Drew Logie v. Fife Council [2006] CSOH 127

Wed, 16 Aug 2006 00:00:00 GMT

Personal Injury Action - Opposed Motion for Issues

Paul McKnight v. Corus Construction [2006] CSOH 116

Tue, 01 Aug 2006 00:00:00 GMT

Proof - Reparation Accident at Work

John Quigley (AP) v. Hart Builders (Edinburgh) Limited [2006] CSOH 118

Fri, 28 Jul 2006 00:00:00 GMT

Proof - Reparation - Accident at work

William Anderson v. Christian Salvesen plc [2006] CSOH 101

Tue, 04 Jul 2006 00:00:00 GMT

Personal Injury Acrtion - Opposed Motion for Proof

William Anderson v. Christian Salvesen plc [2006] CSOH 101

Tue, 04 Jul 2006 00:00:00 GMT

Personal Injury Acrtion - Opposed Motion for Proof

Peter Alastair Struthers-Wright v. Nevis Range Development Company PLC [2006] CSOH 68

Thu, 04 May 2006 00:00:00 GMT

Proof - Personal Injury Action

David Morrison v Whiteinch Demolition Ltd [2006] CSOH 67

Thu, 04 May 2006 00:00:00 GMT

Personal Injury Action - Additional Fee

William McFarlane v. Corus Construction and Industrial [2006] CSOH 38

Tue, 07 Mar 2006 00:00:00 GMT

Civil Proof - Personal Injury Action

Louise Galbraith v. First Glasgow (NO.1) Limited [2006] CSOH 36

Wed, 01 Mar 2006 00:00:00 GMT

Personal Injury Action - Motion for Decree in term

Craig Middleton V. C.P.S. 2000 Limited [2006] CSOH 33

Fri, 24 Feb 2006 00:00:00 GMT

Civil Proof on Quantum Following Accident at Work

Kyle Charles Toms and Another V. Royal Mail Group PLC [2006] CSOH 32

Fri, 24 Feb 2006 00:00:00 GMT

Civil Proof - Death of employee - Duty of Care?

Margaret Hughes v Grampian Country Food Group Limited

Wed, 18 Jan 2006 00:00:00 GMT

Civil Proof Before Answer Regulation 4 of the Manu

Therese Elliot v Mark Kerr

Mon, 16 Jan 2006 00:00:00 GMT

Civil Proof - Personal Injury Action

Daniel Moffat v The Advocate General for Scotland

Fri, 13 Jan 2006 00:00:00 GMT

Civil Proof Before Answer

Diana Cheesman v. Internatiional Travel Service Limited

Thu, 08 Dec 2005 00:00:00 GMT

Personal Injury: Motion for Jury Trial:

Graeme Morrison v. Andrea Maree Gardiner

Fri, 18 Nov 2005 00:00:00 GMT

RTA:

John Burke v. William McCafferty + Bernard Gough + Glasgow City Council

Fri, 18 Nov 2005 00:00:00 GMT

Hand Arm Vibration Syndrome:

Jean Craigie v. Lanarkshire Health Boad +Prospect Healthcare (Hairmyres) Limited

Tue, 30 Aug 2005 00:00:00 GMT

Accident At Work:

Joseph Platt as guardian of Anne McRory v. Rosina Isobel Dorothy Park and Others as executors nominate of the late Brian Park

Tue, 09 Aug 2005 00:00:00 GMT

Personal Injury/Procedure Roll Hearing on Defenders Preliminary Pleas:

John William Lennox v. Alfred Walker Bishop

Fri, 01 Jul 2005 00:00:00 GMT

Motion for Interim Damages:

Hunting Oilfield Services (UK) Limited v. Precision Powertrain (UK) Limited

Thu, 30 Jun 2005 23:00:00 GMT

Personal Injury/Third Party Liability:

Susan Jemima Duncan Executor Dative of the Late Peter Grant Duncan v. Mark Martin Walshe + Whittle Movers Limited

Fri, 17 Jun 2005 00:00:00 GMT

Reclaiming Motion/ RTA:

EDWARD PRATT v. THE SCOTTISH MINISTERS

Wed, 04 May 2005 00:00:00 GMT

PERSONAL INJURY:

Henry Wyse Rodger (AP) v. C & J Contracts Limited

Wed, 30 Mar 2005 00:00:00 GMT

Accident At Work:

Robert Robb v. Salamis (M &amI) Limitedp

Wed, 16 Mar 2005 00:00:00 GMT

Personal Injury: Appeal:

Lee Lyell v. Sun MIcrosystems Scotland BV + Manpower PLC

Tue, 15 Mar 2005 00:00:00 GMT

Personal Injury: Debate:

Steven McFarlane v. Scottish Borders Council

Thu, 03 Mar 2005 00:00:00 GMT

Personal Injury Reclaiming Motion: