Jaffray v Grampian Test & Certification Ltd [2005] ScotSC 3 (06 January 2005)

Jaffray v Grampian Test & Certification Ltd [2005] ScotSC 3 (06 January 2005)

The proposed amendments introduced new statutory grounds of fault relating to the adequacy of the clamping machine and the requirement for stabilisation, which were not foreshadowed in the original pleadings. These constituted a radical alteration to the pursuer's case and were therefore time-barred. The sheriff did not err in refusing the amendment, and the appeal was refused.

Citation
[2005] ScotSC 3
Parties
Pursuer and Appellant: Alan Orr Jaffray; Defenders and Respondents: Grampian Test & Certification Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
06 January 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Interlocutor Refusing Amendment of Pleadings
Outcome
Appeal refused; interlocutor of sheriff adhered to.
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Time Bar/limitation, Employer's Liability, Workplace Safety, Statutory Duties
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Employment Law Amendment of Pleadings Time Bar/limitation Employer's Liability Workplace Safety Statutory Duties

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alan Orr Jaffray

Pursuer and Appellant

Grampian Test & Certification Limited

Defenders and Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Interlocutor Refusing Amendment of Pleadings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proposed amendment to the pleadings constituted a new case and was therefore time-barred under the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973
  2. 2 Whether the sheriff erred in the exercise of his discretion in refusing the amendment

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed amendments introduced new statutory grounds of fault relating to the adequacy of the clamping machine and the requirement for stabilisation, which were not foreshadowed in the original pleadings. These constituted a radical alteration to the pursuer's case and were therefore time-barred. The sheriff did not err in refusing the amendment, and the appeal was refused.

Court Disposition

Appeal refused; interlocutor of sheriff adhered to.

Orders

  • Pursuer found liable to defenders in expenses of the appeal; account of expenses to be taxed by auditor of court.
  • Cause remitted to sheriff to proceed as accords.