Platt v Park & Ors [2005] ScotCS CSOH_109 (09 August 2005)

Platt v Park & Ors [2005] ScotCS CSOH_109 (09 August 2005)

The question of whether the claim for future care costs is based on a substantial or speculative risk cannot be determined on the pleadings alone and requires evidence; therefore, the averments should not be deleted as irrelevant and the matter should proceed to proof before answer.

Citation
[2005] ScotCS CSOH_109
Parties
Pursuer: Joseph Platt as Guardian of Anne McCrory; Defenders: Rosina Isobel Dorothy Park and Others as Executors Nominate of the late Brian Park
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
09 August 2005
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Action for Damages / Procedure Roll Hearing on Relevancy of Averments; Interlocutory Decision
Outcome
Defenders' first plea-in-law repelled; proof before answer allowed; defenders' second and third pleas-in-law reserved.
Legal Topics
Damages, Speculative Loss, Care Costs, Relevancy of Pleadings
Personal Injury Civil Procedure Damages Speculative Loss Care Costs Relevancy of Pleadings

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph Platt as Guardian of Anne McCrory

Pursuer

Rosina Isobel Dorothy Park and Others as Executors Nominate of the late Brian Park

Defenders

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Action for Damages / Procedure Roll Hearing on Relevancy of Averments; Interlocutory Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether averments regarding future care costs are too speculative to be remitted to probation
  2. 2 Whether the pleadings disclose a real or substantial risk of future liability for care costs

Ratio Decidendi

The question of whether the claim for future care costs is based on a substantial or speculative risk cannot be determined on the pleadings alone and requires evidence; therefore, the averments should not be deleted as irrelevant and the matter should proceed to proof before answer.

Court Disposition

Defenders' first plea-in-law repelled; proof before answer allowed; defenders' second and third pleas-in-law reserved.

Orders

  • Repel defenders' first plea-in-law of consent.
  • Allow proof before answer on the averments in condescendence 7.