JACK CUMMING v SSE PLC [2016] ScotSC 35 (04 May 2016)

JACK CUMMING v SSE PLC [2016] ScotSC 35 (04 May 2016)

The court held that, given the complexity of the pursuer's exposure history, the detailed calls in the defences, the need to advise on provisional damages, and the importance of the claim to the pursuer, it was reasonable to sanction the employment of junior counsel under section 108 of the 2014 Act. Each case must be assessed on its own merits, and the present case warranted counsel despite its value and the existence of a framework agreement.

Citation
[2016] ScotSC 35
Parties
Pursuer: Jack Cumming; Defender: SSE Plc
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
04 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury (asbestos Exposure) / Judgment on Motion for Sanction for Counsel Following Settlement by Tender
Outcome
Sanction for the employment of junior counsel granted; decree for payment in terms of tender.
Legal Topics
Asbestos Related Disease, Pleural Plaques, Damages, Sanction for Counsel, Expenses, Provisional Damages, Framework Agreement, Court Procedure
Personal Injury Employment Law Civil Procedure Asbestos Related Disease Pleural Plaques Damages Sanction for Counsel Expenses +3 more

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 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jack Cumming

Pursuer

SSE Plc

Defender

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury (asbestos Exposure) / Judgment on Motion for Sanction for Counsel Following Settlement by Tender

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the employment of counsel was reasonable and should be sanctioned under section 108 of the Courts Reform (Scotland) Act 2014 in a pleural plaques personal injury claim resolved by tender.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that, given the complexity of the pursuer's exposure history, the detailed calls in the defences, the need to advise on provisional damages, and the importance of the claim to the pursuer, it was reasonable to sanction the employment of junior counsel under section 108 of the 2014 Act. Each case must be assessed on its own merits, and the present case warranted counsel despite its value and the existence of a framework agreement.

Court Disposition

Sanction for the employment of junior counsel granted; decree for payment in terms of tender.

Orders

  • Defenders to pay pursuer £9,175 sterling, net of liabilities under section 6 of the Social Security (Recovery of Benefits) Act 1997.
  • Defenders liable for pursuer's expenses to date of tender as taxed.