Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
This is an appeal in an action in which the pursuer seeks an award of damages in respect of injuries which he sustained on 26 November 1996 in the course of his employment with the first defenders. It appears that he was struck by some collapsing scaffolding while making his way from one part of the first defenders' premises to another. It also now appears that that scaffolding had been erected, and was being dismantled, by employees of the second defenders who at the material time were engaged in installing new power supplies in the first defenders' premises.
Following on sundry correspondence between the pursuer's solicitors and the defenders and their insurers (to some of which I shall refer in more detail later) the present action was raised against both defenders in December 1997. Defences were ordered in the normal way, and an options hearing was fixed for 17 April 1998. That options hearing was continued to 15 May 1998 and on that date an interlocutor was pronounced which is the subject of the present appeal.
"The Sheriff, on pursuer's motion, dismisses the first defender [ sic ] from the crave of the writ and modifies the expenses of the pursuer to nil; in respect of the second defender [ sic ] closes the record; allows parties a proof of their respective averments; assigns [a date for the proof]".
Be that as it may, it was clear from the outset of the appeal hearing that both parties (by which I mean the pursuer and the first defenders, since the second defenders did not consider it necessary to have individual representation, though their interests were nominally represented by Mr Russell) were of the view that the interlocutor of 15 May 1998 could not possibly stand in its present terms. Consequently, the primary question at the appeal hearing was what would be the best way of resolving the problem created by that interlocutor.
For reasons which will become clear shortly I think that it is appropriate to quote the terms of the minute of abandonment. They are as follows:
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.