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.
[5] In the paragraphs which follow, I propose to deal with each of the contested issues in turn.
[8] For these reasons, I hold it proved that the accident to which the present action relates occurred on Sunday 14 April 2002.
[11] Campbell's evidence was that in the course of his investigation he interviewed the pursuer on 18 April 2002, completing an Incident and Near Miss Report Form (no. 6/6 of process) at that time. In the witness box he insisted that he had gone over all parts of the form with the pursuer before completing it, with the possible exception of a box relative to the action to be taken to prevent a recurrence. Box 8 reflected the pursuer's position at that time in the following terms -
Had the pursuer suggested that the coolant was in fact spilt by someone else, Campbell was adamant that box 8 would not have been completed in these terms.
[12] Furthermore, when the pursuer returned to work on 22 May 2002, a so-called disciplinary hearing took place at which the pursuer inter alia maintained that he should receive industrial injury payments. As the minute no. 7/1 of process indicated, an exchange took place broadly along the following lines:-
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.