Steve is recognised as a specialist and is highly experienced in regulatory matters and personal injury litigation.
He has: advised and appeared for individuals and companies in relation to prosecutions under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, the Environmental Protection Act 1990, the Food Safety Act 1990 and related statutory regulations; advised and appeared for appellants in relation to improvement and prohibition notices served under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974; advised and appeared for the accused in prosecutions under the Road Traffic Act 1988 and other road traffic related provisions; and represented parties at Fatal Accident Inquiries.
As part of his Personal Injury practice Steve has considerable experience in dealing with claims arising out of employment, clinical negligence, road traffic accidents (particularly those involving motorcycles), claims against the Motor Insurers Bureau, claims arising from accidents involving aircraft and claims related to industrial injury and disease. He is highly experienced in catastrophic injury and clinical negligence claims.
The Bourbon Dolphin – March 2012 (unreported) - representing a major oil company in appeal against improvement notice relating to alleged breach of Section 3 of HSWA following the capsize of the Bourbon Dolphin in course of anchor handling operations in the North Sea
HMA v Hydro Pumps Limited - September 2013 (unreported) - representing company charged on indictment under section 2 of HSWA following two separate accidents in the course of hyro-demolition works at the Tay Bridge
HMA v John Stewart - April 2014 - representing accused charged on indictment in prosecution under and in terms of Section 2B of the Road Traffic Act 1988
HMA v Callum Munro - April 2014 - representing accused charged on indictment under and in terms of Section 2B of the Road Traffic Act 1988
FAI into the death of Basilio Brazao - Determination September 2014 - deceased fell from the top of a wind turbine while wearing a harness attached to a fall arrest system - representing interested party/manufacturer of fall arrest system
PF (Duns) v Wilson Young - November 2014 - representing accused charged as an individual under and in terms of section 36(1) of HSWA
HMA v Tristan McKenzie - December 2014 - representing accused charged on indictment under and in terms of Section 2B of the Road Traffic Act 1988
Adam Russell v NFU -  CSOH 157 - The pursuer was riding his motorcycle when he was involved in a collision with a vehicle and trailer being driven by the defenders' insured. The pursuer had said to a police officer at the accident locus to tell the insured driver not to worry because the accident had not been his fault. After proof Lady Stacey held that the pursuer had proved his case holding that the accident had been caused by the defenders' insured driving his vehicle and trailer into the path of the pursuer. There was no evidence to show that the pursuer was guilty of contributory negligence.
Robert Adams v MIB - 30 September 2014 (unreported) - The Appellant suffered injuries when he lost control of his motorcycle due to the presence of diesel on the road. The MIB refused to make an award and that decision was appealed to an arbitrator. The appeal was refused the appeal. An Oral Hearing was requested in terms of Clause 22(4)(c) of the Untraced Drivers' Agreement, 2003. Having heard evidence the arbitrator allowed the appeal, found the MIB liable in the expenses of the arbitration and remitted the Appellant's application for compensation to the MIB for further investigation and a decision on the amount to be awarded.
Drummond Cox v Dundee City Council -  CSOH 3 - The pursuer attended a rugby training course at the grounds of a rugby club in Dundee. The course was organised by the defenders and, on the day in question, was conducted by their employee as part of his employment as a rugby development officer with them. After an indoor session the course involved practical training outdoors on the grounds of the club. In the course of a dynamic skills exercise the pursuer side-stepped to avoid contact with players coming towards him. When planting his foot he sustained a fracture injury to the fifth metatarsal of his left foot. The issue of risk assessment having regard to underfoot conditions arose. After proof, Lady Scott held that the pursuer had proved his case, found the defenders vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of their employee and decree was granted in favour of the pursuer.
Richard Holdich v Lothian Heath Board -  CSOH 197 - The pursuer deposited sperm samples with the defenders’ cryogenic storage facility. He did so before having treatment for testicular cancer which, he was advised, would, and which in fact did, make him infertile. He preserved his sperm to preserve his chances of becoming a father. The pursuer married and requested his stored sperm so that he and his wife could try to have children by IVF. He was told there had been a malfunction with the storage vessel. The initial advice to the pursuer was that his samples could have been damaged thus reducing the chances of conception and increasing the risk of chromosomal abnormalities, miscarriage and birth defects. The pursuer and his wife decided not to proceed with IVF. The pursuer averred that his decision was a reasonable one and claimed damages from the defenders for distress, depression and loss of autonomy. His case was presented as a claim for mental injury consequential on property damage in breach of contract and, secondarily, for “pure” mental injury in delict. The defenders sought dismissal of the action on the basis that the pursuer’s pleadings demonstrably failed to disclose a cause of action relevant in law, or which could be relevant, for recovery of damages. The pursuer succeeded in obtaining a proof before answer without any matter being excluded from probation.
Clare Connelly of Compass Chambers gave evidence on behalf of the Faculty of Advocates yesterday... Read More
The Supreme Court today handed down judgment in the case of HM... Read More