SA v PA 2020 CSIH 24
An action of harassment for intentional infliction of harm and under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 for an alleged abusive marriage over a period of 30 years, including rape and assault. The defender reclaimed the allowance of a PBA on the grounds of legal error.
HMA v Salmond 2020
The issue of legal professional privilege and litigation privilege was argued before Sheriff Weir QC (now Lord Weir) and related to a warrant for recovery of documentation from the Scottish Government.
Gracie v City of Edinburgh Council [2018] CSOH 37
An action of damages raised by a former pupil against a local education authority for injuries sustained in an accident in 1965, the pursuer’s motion to allow a Minute of Amendment was refused where he failed to aver exceptional circumstances justifying the exercise of the court’s discretion under the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 s. 19A and it would not be equitable to allow the action to proceed.
Phensrisai v Yutikan [2017] CSOH 48
A proof on quantum in a fatal road traffic collision where a former Buddhist monk and PhD student sustained spine and chest fractures and sought damages for past and future losses and miscellaneous costs.
Brits v Kilcoyne & Co [2017] CSOH 24
This was a professional negligence claim against solicitors who failed to raise an action before the expiry of the triennium. This was a procedure roll debate for the pursuer before Lady Stacey. The pursuer argued that the defenders’ pleadings in relation to waiver were irrelevant and should not be admitted to probation. The defenders sought a PBA.
The defenders’ pleadings did not offer to prove that a statement by the employer's insurer in the early stages of litigation that the employer would not take a plea of time bar amounted to a unilateral promise or a waiver of the employer's right to later take that plea, and its averments relating to waiver were deleted from probation.
Reid v Forth Valley Health Board [2016]
This medical negligence claim was dealt with under Chapter 42A and involved a lengthy proof in March 2016.
It related to the death of a husband and father due to the alleged negligence of a nurse and a junior doctor who made repeated attempts to reposition a displaced tracheostomy. They did not succeed. As a result, the deceased went into cardiac arrest and died. There were separate claims against the nurse and the doctor in relation to their responsibilities and actions and experts on both sides.
The family (the widow and son) claimed for loss of society/loss of support/services etc and also a secondary victim claim for psychiatric injury (nervous shock) due to the sight of the deceased in the immediate aftermath.
Dr Prescott v University of St Andrews [2016] CSOH 3
The pursuer alleged he contracted mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos during his employment with the University when he entered the Old Library building when construction works were ongoing. No Scottish cases have gone to proof in relation to similar circumstances. It is very unusual for a mesothelioma case to proceed to proof and my agents were not aware of another in the recent past.
All issues (apart from diagnosis and quantum) were in dispute during the course of the proof (exposure; negligent exposure; causation). We heard evidence from Dr Moore Gillon, the defenders expert who is an internationally renowned expert.
McShane v Burnwynd Racing Stables [2015] CSOH 70; 2015 Rep LR 107
The pursuer was a horse trainer. He was training a horse on a gallop when the horse fell on him and he sustained a serious shoulder injury which rendered him incapable of working. The pursuer alleged that this was due to the poor state of the gallop.
Arguments were made in terms of the Workplace (Health, Safety & Welfare) Regulations 1992 and also in relation to the Work at Height Regulations 2005, in respect of which there were no reported cases.
This was a very complicated case due to last minute issues which arose, which required changes to the pleadings and further investigations and expert evidence.
