Ruddy v Rae, Chief Constable Strathclyde Police [2011] ScotCS CSIH_16 (02 March 2011)

Ruddy v Rae, Chief Constable Strathclyde Police [2011] ScotCS CSIH_16 (02 March 2011)

The action is incompetent because it improperly combines distinct causes of action against separate defenders in a single proceeding, contrary to established procedural law, and claims involving breaches of Article 3 ECHR investigatory obligations require judicial review rather than ordinary action for damages.

Citation
[2011] ScotCS CSIH_16
Parties
Pursuer and Appellant: Kevin Ruddy; First Defender and Respondent: William Rae, Chief Constable Strathclyde Police; Second Defender and Respondent: Elish Angiolini Q.C., The Lord Advocate
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
02 March 2011
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal Against Interlocutor of Sheriff Principal Excluding Averments and Dismissing Action
Outcome
Action falls to be dismissed as incompetent; case to be put out By Order for representations before further interlocutor pronounced.
Legal Topics
Competency of Proceedings, Article 3 ECHR, Damages for Assault, Judicial Review, Vicarious Liability
Civil Procedure Human Rights Administrative Law Competency of Proceedings Article 3 ECHR Damages for Assault Judicial Review Vicarious Liability

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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kevin Ruddy

Pursuer and Appellant

William Rae, Chief Constable Strathclyde Police

First Defender and Respondent

Elish Angiolini Q.C., The Lord Advocate

Second Defender and Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal Against Interlocutor of Sheriff Principal Excluding Averments and Dismissing Action

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the action is competent given multiple distinct causes against separate defenders
  2. 2 Whether claims for breach of Article 3 ECHR require judicial review
  3. 3 Whether damages for assault and damages for breach of investigatory obligation can be pursued together

Ratio Decidendi

The action is incompetent because it improperly combines distinct causes of action against separate defenders in a single proceeding, contrary to established procedural law, and claims involving breaches of Article 3 ECHR investigatory obligations require judicial review rather than ordinary action for damages.

Court Disposition

Action falls to be dismissed as incompetent; case to be put out By Order for representations before further interlocutor pronounced.

Orders

  • Opinion issued to parties; case to be put out By Order for representations.