Watt v Fairfield Shipbuilding & Engineering Company Ltd & Ors [1998] ScotCS 48 (3 November 1998)

Watt v Fairfield Shipbuilding & Engineering Company Ltd & Ors [1998] ScotCS 48 (3 November 1998)

The Asbestos Industry Regulations 1931 did not apply to shipbuilding yards or to the pursuer's work therein, as they were intended to regulate the asbestos industry itself and not general industrial use of asbestos. The pursuer's claim under the 1931 Regulations against the second defenders is therefore irrelevant and must be dismissed to that extent.

Citation
[1998] ScotCS 48
Parties
Pursuer: John Watt; First Defender: Fairfield Shipbuilding & Engineering Company Limited; Second Defender: Upper Clyde Shipbuilders Ltd (in liquidation); Third Defender: Energy & Marine (Weirside) Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
03 November 1998
Procedural Posture
Reparation (personal Injury) / Procedure Roll (plea to Relevancy) and Interlocutor
Outcome
Partial dismissal (in part)
Legal Topics
Asbestos Exposure, Factories Act, Asbestos Industry Regulations 1931, Shipbuilding and Ship Repairing Regulations 1960, Statutory Interpretation
Personal Injury Occupational Health and Safety Employment Law Asbestos Exposure Factories Act Asbestos Industry Regulations 1931 Shipbuilding and Ship Repairing Regulations 1960 Statutory Interpretation

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Watt

Pursuer

Fairfield Shipbuilding & Engineering Company Limited

First Defender

Upper Clyde Shipbuilders Ltd (in liquidation)

Second Defender

Energy & Marine (Weirside) Limited

Third Defender

Procedural Posture

Reparation (personal Injury) / Procedure Roll (plea to Relevancy) and Interlocutor

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Asbestos Industry Regulations 1931 applied to shipbuilding yards and the pursuer's work therein
  2. 2 Whether the pursuer's claim under the 1931 Regulations against the second defenders is relevant

Ratio Decidendi

The Asbestos Industry Regulations 1931 did not apply to shipbuilding yards or to the pursuer's work therein, as they were intended to regulate the asbestos industry itself and not general industrial use of asbestos. The pursuer's claim under the 1931 Regulations against the second defenders is therefore irrelevant and must be dismissed to that extent.

Court Disposition

Partial dismissal (in part)

Orders

  • Action dismissed so far as laid against the second defenders under the Asbestos Industry Regulations 1931.
  • Proof before answer appointed quoad ultra.