McLean & Ors v. William Denny & Bros Ltd & Ors [2004] ScotCS 108 (30 April 2004)

McLean & Ors v. William Denny & Bros Ltd & Ors [2004] ScotCS 108 (30 April 2004)

The Lord Ordinary did not err in law in awarding £28,000 to the widow; he was entitled to consider the gap between judicial and jury awards, the passage of time, and the strength of the marital relationship. The paucity of jury awards means no definitive pattern can be set, but the award is within a just range under s.1(4).

Citation
[2004] ScotCS 108
Parties
First Pursuer and Respondent: Marion Renwick Thorburn McLean; Second Pursuer and Respondent: Alison A. Campbell; Third Pursuer and Respondent: Kenneth Campbell; Fourth Pursuer and Respondent: Henry McLean; Fifth Pursuer and Respondent: Charlotte McLean; Sixth Pursuer and Respondent: Andrew T. McLean; First Defender and Reclaimer: William Denny & Bros. Limited; Third Defender and Reclaimer: Kendrick Computing PLC (In Liquidation); Third Defender and Reclaimer: Richard Victor Yerburgh Setchin; Second Defender: Scott & Sons (Bowling) Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
30 April 2004
Procedural Posture
Reclaiming Motion (appeal) in Civil Damages Action / Appeal Judgment (inner House, Court of Session)
Outcome
Reclaiming motion refused; cross-appeal refused; award of £28,000 to the first pursuer affirmed.
Legal Topics
Damages for Bereavement, Assessment of Non Patrimonial Loss, Judicial Vs Jury Awards, Interpretation of Damages (scotland) Act 1976 S.1(4)
Tort Law Personal Injury Law Scottish Civil Procedure Damages for Bereavement Assessment of Non Patrimonial Loss Judicial Vs Jury Awards Interpretation of Damages (scotland) Act 1976 S.1(4)

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 3 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Marion Renwick Thorburn McLean

First Pursuer and Respondent

Alison A. Campbell

Second Pursuer and Respondent

Kenneth Campbell

Third Pursuer and Respondent

Henry McLean

Fourth Pursuer and Respondent

Charlotte McLean

Fifth Pursuer and Respondent

Andrew T. McLean

Sixth Pursuer and Respondent

William Denny & Bros. Limited

First Defender and Reclaimer

Kendrick Computing PLC (In Liquidation)

Third Defender and Reclaimer

Richard Victor Yerburgh Setchin

Third Defender and Reclaimer

Scott & Sons (Bowling) Limited

Second Defender

Procedural Posture

Reclaiming Motion (appeal) in Civil Damages Action / Appeal Judgment (inner House, Court of Session)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the appropriate level of damages to award a widow under section 1(4) of the Damages (Scotland) Act 1976, as amended?
  2. 2 Did the Lord Ordinary err in law in the assessment of damages for bereavement?
  3. 3 Should judicial awards be increased to reflect jury awards and societal expectations?

Ratio Decidendi

The Lord Ordinary did not err in law in awarding £28,000 to the widow; he was entitled to consider the gap between judicial and jury awards, the passage of time, and the strength of the marital relationship. The paucity of jury awards means no definitive pattern can be set, but the award is within a just range under s.1(4).

Court Disposition

Reclaiming motion refused; cross-appeal refused; award of £28,000 to the first pursuer affirmed.

Orders

  • Award of £28,000 to the first pursuer under s.1(4) Damages (Scotland) Act 1976 affirmed.
  • No increase or reduction in damages; both appeal and cross-appeal dismissed.