Graeme S Middleton
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Ll.B (Hons)(Aberdeen) (1992)
Dip.LP(Aberdeen) (1993)
PRACTICE:
Graeme is experienced in a wide range of civil litigation. He came to the Bar as a respected solicitor having specialised for nine years in Personal Injury and Health and Safety litigation. His principal fields of practice include:-
- Personal Injury
- Medical Negligence
- Insurance Litigation
- Commercial and Contract Litigation
Since calling, Graeme has developed a busy reparation practice, acting for both Pursuers and Defenders (including insurers and local authorities) in accident, industrial disease and professional negligence claims, including medical, surveyor's and solicitor's negligence. Disease claims include asbestos lung disease, industrial deafness, Hand Arm Vibration Syndrome, silicosis and organo-phosphate poisoning.
In the medical negligence field, Graeme has been involved in the settlement of a case where complications arose at birth, leaving a young girl with very severe cerebral palsy. The case involved difficult issues of clinical negligence and complex quantification.
Graeme also appears in commercial cases and has defended clients prosecuted under health and safety legislation. He appears principally in the Court of Session, including the Commercial Court, and also the Sheriff Court.SELECTED CASES:
Reparation
- Paul McKnight v Corus Construction [2006] CSOH 116 - industrial accident claim involving the application of the requirements of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998, and a consideration of expert ergonomic and metallurgical evidence.
- John Duff v East Dunbartonshire Council & Anor Unreported, 2005 - member of public fell down a steep slope into a ravine - duties of an occupier of land under Occupiers' Liability (Scotland) Act 1960 - complex conveyancing and surveying issues relating to boundary dispute between the two Defenders. The case was eventually abandoned by the Pursuer's executor after many years of litigation.
Other
- AZ Agacan v Findlay & Co - successfully argued the refusal of this appeal in relation to the construction of a contract for professional services and the non-payment of professional fees.