Jones v. George Leslie Ltd [2005] ScotSC 39 (14 July 2005)

Jones v. George Leslie Ltd [2005] ScotSC 39 (14 July 2005)

Certification as an expert witness under the Act of Sederunt requires that the witness be specifically employed to make investigations necessary for the litigation; Dr MacDonald was not so employed, as his report was based on ongoing treatment rather than litigation-specific investigation.

Citation
[2005] ScotSC 39
Parties
Respondent and Pursuer: Dr J Jones; Appellant and Defender: George Leslie Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
14 July 2005
Procedural Posture
Appeal in Reparation Action / Appeal Against Interlocutor Regarding Expert Witness Certification and Expenses
Outcome
Appeal allowed; certification of Dr MacDonald as expert witness refused; expenses of appeal awarded to defender; no expenses due for the opposed motion hearing.
Legal Topics
Certification of Expert Witnesses, Expenses in Litigation, Reparation Actions
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Certification of Expert Witnesses Expenses in Litigation Reparation Actions

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr J Jones

Respondent and Pursuer

George Leslie Limited

Appellant and Defender

Procedural Posture

Appeal in Reparation Action / Appeal Against Interlocutor Regarding Expert Witness Certification and Expenses

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Dr Ross M F M MacDonald should be certified as an expert witness under paragraph 1 of the Act of Sederunt (Fees of Witnesses and Shorthand Writers in the Sheriff Court) 1992
  2. 2 Whether the expenses related to the certification and the appeal should be awarded

Ratio Decidendi

Certification as an expert witness under the Act of Sederunt requires that the witness be specifically employed to make investigations necessary for the litigation; Dr MacDonald was not so employed, as his report was based on ongoing treatment rather than litigation-specific investigation.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; certification of Dr MacDonald as expert witness refused; expenses of appeal awarded to defender; no expenses due for the opposed motion hearing.

Orders

  • Recall interlocutor of 5 November 2004 regarding certification of Dr MacDonald and expenses
  • Refuse pursuer's motion for certification of Dr MacDonald as expert witness