McLeod v British Railways Board [2000] ScotCS 333 (22 December 2000)

McLeod v British Railways Board [2000] ScotCS 333 (22 December 2000)

The jury's award, though very high compared to what a judge might have awarded, was not so excessive that no reasonable jury could have made it. The established Landell test remains the correct standard for reviewing jury awards, and the procedure is compatible with Article 6 ECHR. The defenders' motion for a new trial is refused.

Citation
[2000] ScotCS 333
Parties
Pursuer and Respondent: Martin McLeod; Defenders and Appellants: British Railways Board
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
22 December 2000
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Action (damages for Solatium) / Appeal Against Jury Award; Motion for New Trial Under Section 29(1)(d) of the Court of Session Act 1988
Outcome
Motion for new trial refused; jury award stands.
Legal Topics
Assessment of Damages, Jury Awards, Excessive Damages, Solatium, Contributory Negligence, Fair Trial Under Article 6 ECHR
Tort Law Personal Injury Civil Procedure Human Rights Assessment of Damages Jury Awards Excessive Damages Solatium +2 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 2 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Martin McLeod

Pursuer and Respondent

British Railways Board

Defenders and Appellants

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Action (damages for Solatium) / Appeal Against Jury Award; Motion for New Trial Under Section 29(1)(d) of the Court of Session Act 1988

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the jury's award of damages was excessive and should be set aside under Section 29(1)(d) of the Court of Session Act 1988
  2. 2 Whether the procedure for reviewing jury awards is compatible with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights

Ratio Decidendi

The jury's award, though very high compared to what a judge might have awarded, was not so excessive that no reasonable jury could have made it. The established Landell test remains the correct standard for reviewing jury awards, and the procedure is compatible with Article 6 ECHR. The defenders' motion for a new trial is refused.

Court Disposition

Motion for new trial refused; jury award stands.