Compass Chambers

Reparation Latest News

10/02/2012 - Anne Moulds v Alexander Reid [2012] CSOH 13

Lord Matthews held the pursuer had averred sufficient facts to allow the court to infer that the defender’s course of harassment lasted beyond August 2006, so that her action, raised in August 2009, was not time-barred.  In any event, section 19A would have applied.  A Proof Before Answer was allowed with all pleas standing.

The pursuer was represented by Robert Milligan QC and Amber Galbraith of Compass Chambers.

http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2012CSOH13.html

20/01/2012 - McInnes v. (1) Norwich Union Insurance; (2) AXA Insurance [2012] CSOH 6A

On 24th March 2007, the pursuer was injured in a RTA on the A9. She was a passenger in a car travelling southwards when a camper van crossed the central line and collided head-on. The evidence at proof before Lord Docherty was that a white van, driven by the second defenders’ insured, was travelling northwards and carrying out multiple overtaking manouevres. The white van overtook the camper van driven by the first defenders’ insured before cutting in front of a line of traffic, in turn causing the vehicles to brake. The second defender’s insured braked and steered slightly to the right when his wheels locked and carried him into the path of oncoming traffic.

 

The pursuer’s claim was settled and the defenders went to proof on apportionment. Lord Doherty considered the causative potency and blameworthiness of the two drivers’ actions. It was conceded by the first defenders that their insured had been driving too close to the vehicle in front. The second defenders contended that the first defenders’ insured was the effective cause of the accident. Lord Doherty found the first defenders’ insured to be a credible and reliable witness; the second defenders’ insured sought to minimise his culpability.

 

Lord Doherty found that both drivers were in breach of their duty as road users. The second defenders’ insured had “decided to take a chance” and his driving was hazardous. The first defenders’ insured ought to have been more alert to the development of the hazardous situation created by the overtaking manouevre; his decision to steer into the oncoming traffic was an error of judgment taken in a crisis, rather than a reckless decision to court danger. The fault of the second defenders’ insured was greater, but the first defenders’ insured’s actions were more closely connected with the collision. In assessing the comparative causative potency and blameworthiness, Lord Doherty apportioned liability on the basis of 50% to each defender.

 

The first defenders were represented by Ian Mackay QC and Craig Murray; the second defenders were represented by Iain Armstrong QC and Steve Love, all of Compass Chambers.

02/12/2011 - McGlinchey v General Motors UK Ltd

The pursuer claimed damages for injuries sustained by the pursuer when her car rolled back onto her, crushing her leg against a bollard.  The pursuer claimed that the accident was caused by a failure in the handbrake of her car and accordingly the defenders were in breach of their obligations to her under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 and the common law.  On 29th November 2011 Lord Brailsford issued an ex tempore decision following proof absolving the defenders.  He held, under reference to Rhesa Shipping Co. v Edmonds and another [1985] 1 WLR 918, that the explanation proffered by the pursuer’s expert was not satisfactory to explain the cause of this accident.  Furthermore, he held that if there was a defect in the handbrake, it had occurred post supply and was a result of wear and tear and so could not be a defect in terms of section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act or at common law.

The defenders were represented by Robert Milligan QC and Calum Wilson of Compass Chambers.

23/11/2011 - Samuel O’Neil v DHL Services Limited [2011] CSOH 83

The pursuer sought damages from the defenders for injuries he suffered as a result of an accident in the course of his employment with them as a driver/drayman.  Having unloaded empty kegs of beer from a trailer at the defenders’ depot, the pursuer jumped from the trailer onto a pad used for absorbing the weight of full beer kegs during deliveries.  It was snowing and the ground at the depot was icy.  As the pursuer landed on the pad, it slid away from underneath him, causing him to strike his back against the ground.  The critical issues in the case were whether there was a common and accepted practice of jumping from the sides and the rear of trailers; the nature and extent of the pursuer’s knowledge about the dangers of jumping; and the training he had received on those matters.  Lord Pentland held that the defenders provided adequate training to the pursuer; that there was no established practice of jumping down, which the defenders had failed to root out or to which they turned a blind eye; and that the trailer was properly maintained.  The pursuer was entirely the author of his own misfortune; he chose to take a risk for which he alone was to blame.  The successful defenders were represented by Jillian Martin-Brown of Compass Chambers.  The full judgement can be found at http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2011CSOH183.html

09/11/2011 - Strange v Wincanton Logistics Ltd: manual handling appeal

At advising on 26 October 2001, the Opinion of the court in the case of Strange v Wincanton Logistics Ltd was delivered by Lord Brodie.

The pursuer had raised an action (in the Sheriff Court at Livingston) against his former employer, the defenders. It was said that he injured his back whilst moving an empty pallet (one of a number) in the defenders’ warehouse. The defenders admitted that the task was a manual handling operation involving a risk of injury in terms of the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992. At proof, the sheriff found in the defenders’ favour, holding that it was not reasonably practicable for the defenders to have eliminated manual handling and that they had reduced the risks to the lowest level reasonably practicable. The pursuer appealed, arguing, inter alia, that there had been insufficient evidence to allow the sheriff to perform the Edwards v NCB balancing exercise. The Opinion of the court includes an interesting discussion of the application of the reasonable practicability test in the context of the Manual Handling Regulations [para.s 24 – 28], and in light of the dicta of Lord Mance in the recent Supreme Court case of Baker v Quantum Clothing Group [2011] 1 WLR 1003. In particular, the court considered it significant that the task being undertaken by the pursuer had been carried out routinely by the pursuer and others, over many years, and was seemingly universal practice in the warehousing industry. Referring to Baker, the court held that the fact that an employer had followed general practice in the industry was a significant factor to be weighed in the balance in determining reasonable practicability [para. 25]. The court refused the appeal. 

http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2011CSIH65a.html

Graeme Middleton of Compass Chambers represented the Appellant & Pursuer. Barry Smith of Compass Chambers represented the Respondent & Defender. 

17/10/2011 - New Edition of Ogden Tables

26/08/2011 - Wallace v Glasgow City Council [2011] CSIH 57

The pursuer, an employee of the defenders, was injured when she fell off the toilet that she was standing on to open a window.  The defenders were assoilzied in the Outer House.  The pursuer reclaimed and the Inner House held that the defenders had breached their statutory duties under regulation 3 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 and regulation 15 of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992.  Had they carried out a proper risk assessment, they would have provided a window pole in the cubicle.  The finding of 50% contributory negligence was not disturbed.  The successful pursuer was represented by Robert Milligan QC of Compass Chambers.

The full judgement can be found at http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2011CSIH57.html

25/08/2011 - McCarthy v Highland Council [2011] CSIH 51

The pursuer, a teacher, sued for injuries sustained following a series of assaults by an autistic pupil.  She was successful in Inverness Sheriff Court.  The defenders appealed.  Whilst critical of the way the sheriff set out his judgement, the Inner House held that he had been entitled to come to the conclusion that he did and the appeal was refused.  Robert Milligan QC of Compass Chambers represented the pursuer.  Peter Milligan of Compass Chambers was junior counsel for the pursuer.

  

The full opinion of the court can be found at http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2011CSIH51.html

23/08/2011 - Heather Hodgkinson v Renfrewshire Council [2011] CSOH 142

17/06/2011 - Damages (Scotland) Act 2011

On 15th June 2011, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Kenny MacAskill MSP, advised Parliament that a commencement order would be made to bring the Damages (Scotland) Act 2011 into force on 7 July (i.e. 3 months after Royal Assent).  A commencement order has now been signed and will be laid before Parliament this week.

31/05/2011 - Pratt v The Scottish Ministers [2011] CSOH 86

The pursuer sought damages from the Scottish Prison Services for psychological injuries sustained following the ingestion of blood from a prisoner at Barlinnie.  The pursuer claimed that the defenders’ failure to provide counselling through their in-house  service, the Barlinnie Care Team (BCT) had caused or materially contributed to his injuries.  Lord Brodie held that the defenders had not breached their duty of care to the pursuer when they knew that the pursuer had immediately availed himself of appropriate NHS treatment instead.  In any event, he held that early referral to the BCT would not have made any difference to the pursuer’s condition.  The case also contains a useful analysis of the role of expert witnesses.  The defenders were represented by Robert Milligan QC and David Sheldon of Compass Chambers

09/05/2011 - Motorcycles and Fatal Claims

Lord Woolman recently issued his decision in the case of Allison Bellingham and Ors v James Todd. The action concerned a motorcycle accident which resulted in the death of Clifford Paul Bellingham. Mr Bellingham had been riding his motorbike behind the defender's van. The defender braked heavily, which caused the deceased to take evasive action - whereupon he was struck by an oncoming car and killed instantly. The pursuers alleged that the defender had no sufficient reason for breaking heavily, and had thus acted negligently. Liability was denied. There was a further dispute concerning the extent of contributory negligence due to the deceased following too closely behind the defender's van.
 
Lord Woolman held that the defender had been negligent in undertaking heavy braking without sufficient reason. He held, however, that the pursuer was 80% to blame for the accident.

The case was also the first judicial consideration of the levels of awards under s.1(4) of the Damages (Scotland) Act 1976 since Lord Glennie's decision in Weir v The Robertson Group; and since the recent spate of jury trials on the issue. His Lordship held that awards did need to be raised, which he did to a modest level.

All four counsel appearing were from Compass Chambers - Robert Milligan QC and Richard Pugh for the pursuers; and DI MacKay QC and Steve Love for the defender.
 
The decision can be found at:
http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2011CSOH74.html

 

03/02/2011 - Dennis Thomson v Dennis Thomson Builders Ltd

Jury trial before Lord Stewart, 1st and 2nd February 2011. 
The pursuer’s son was killed in accident at work in March 2007.  He was 26 at the time of his death.  The pursuer claimed for “loss of society” in terms of section 1(4) of the Damages (Scotland) Act 1976.  The jury awarded £90,000 (£50,000 to the past and £40,000 to the future).  The pursuer was represented by Robert Milligan QC of Compass Chambers.  The defenders were represented by Geoff Clarke QC and Steve Love, both of Compass Chambers.”

31/01/2011 - Compass Chambers - Reparation Bulletin - January 2011

Welcome to the January 2011 edition of the Compass Chambers Reparation Bulletin. This months edition examines the case of Christopher Brown -v- North Lanarkshire Council (2010) CSOH 156 as well as various other relavant cases.  For further details about the Compass Chambers Reparation Team, please visit our Reparation page. If you wish to receive this and future bulletins please contact Grace Moran on grace.moran@compasschambers.com.

19/11/2010 - Compass Chambers – Reparation Bulletin – November 2010

Welcome to the November 2010 edition of the Compass Chambers Reparation Bulletin. This months edition examines the Work at Height Regulations as well as dealing with Contributory Negligence for Slip/Trip and Jury Awards for Loss of Society.  For further details about the Compass Chambers Reparation Team, please visit our Reparation page. If you wish to receive this and future bulletins please contact Grace Moran on grace.moran@compasschambers.com.

05/10/2010 - James Robertson v BAE Systems Marine Limited, Court of Session 5th October 2010

The pursuer was a shipwright who was injured at work on 16th January 2007. He was working on a new naval destroyer at the Defender’s Govan shipyard, when he slipped on an manhole cover on deck which had not been properly replaced and secured. The pursuer’s case was that he suffered a fractured skull, soft tissue injuries to his neck and post-concussion syndrome.

The proof was heard before Lord Bannatyne over three days from 28th September, and the issues in dispute were contributory negligence and quantum. A verbal judgment was given on 5th October.

Lord Bannatyne found that there had been no contributory negligence – the pursuer had been working in the area for some time before the accident, with the cover being properly in place, and it was not reasonable for him to have expected the cover to have been moved. Given the hazardous nature of a ship in the process of construction, it was not reasonable to expect workers to pay the same degree of attention to the floor that pedestrians may do in the street.

As to quantum, the judge accepted the evidence of the pursuer’s expert witnesses, Dr Durward and Dr Gillam, and found that the pursuer would continue to suffer symptoms of post-concussion syndrome for the rest of his life. The most significant factor was considered to be his ongoing low mood, which lead to social isolation. Lord Bannatyne valued solatium at £13,500. The total award was £15,231.

Mr Robertson was represented by Amber Galbraith of Compass Chambers.

28/09/2010 - Compass Chambers - Reparation Bulletin - September 2010

Welcome to the September 2010 edition of the Compass Chambers Reparation Bulletin.  

This months edition examines the Third Party (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010 as well as looking at the Rome II Regulation and the impact this will have on Accidents Abroad.

 For further details about the Compass Chambers Reparation Team, please visit our Reparation page. If you wish to receive this and future bulletins please contact Grace Moran on grace.moran@compasschambers.com.

20/09/2010 - Raymond Munro v William Sturrock t/a Scotmaps [2010] CSOH 116

This case concerned an accident in 2004. The accident occurred during the "Little the Jewellers" Speyside Stages Rally. The rally was part of the Scottish Rally Championship and the pursuer was the reigning Scottish Rally Champion. Prior to competing in the rally the pursuer, and other competitors, were able to purchase route notes, and an accompanying DVD. The notes were fir use during the rally, and the DVD in the preparatory stages.
The route notes and DVD were created and sold by the defender. Stage 6 of the rally took place through Clashindarroch Forrest. As the pursuer was proceeding through the stage he crashed. He raised an action claiming that the route notes were negligently prepared, in that they incorrectly described the angle of a bend such that the pursuer attempted to drive through it too quickly. Proof was heard on liability only. The defender's position was that the bend was correctly described and that, in any event, any incorrect assessment (being subjective) would have to be proved to the standard required in terms of Hunter v Hanley. In finding for the defenders, Lord Uist held that corner had been correctly described. He did not therefore feel that he required to address the issue of the appropriate standard of care.

The full decision can be viewed at
http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2010CSOH116.html

Richard Pugh, of Compass Chambers, was junior counsel for the defender.

16/09/2010 - Melanie Logan v William Logan and GHI Insurance Services UK Limited

The pursuer claimed damages for injuries sustained in a road traffic accident on 15th August 2007. Liability was admitted, and so the issues at proof focused solely on quantum. Evidence was lead before Lady Stacey in July 2010.

The pursuer suffered a whiplash injury, which resulted in ongoing back pain and she also developed an adjustment disorder which remained untreated. Having retired early from her job as a social worker, the pursuer started her own business as a tattoo artist in July 2006 – at the age of 55. As a result of her ongoing back problems, her evidence was that she could only now work 3 days a week – compared to 6 days before the accident. Unfortunately, when she had the accident the pursuer was in the process of establishing her business and developing her reputation, and this made the accurate assessment of her future earnings loss problematic. Although she had no prior experience as a tattoo artist, the evidence was that she was highly regarded within the tattoo world, and had a loyal following of customers. Clients would have to wait a number of weeks for an appointment.  The defenders sought to argue that no allowance should be made at all for future wage loss. They contended there was insufficient evidence that would allow the Court to assess her loss, and that a forensic accountant would be required. This proposition was not accepted by the Lord Ordinary, and the pursuer’s approach was preferred. In the circumstances it was accepted that a broad brush approach could be taken. The defenders argued for damages in the region of £13406 and £16717. Lady Stacey awarded £65,858.

The pursuer was represented by Amber Galbraith of Compass Chambers.

http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2010CSOH123.html