Mykoliw & Ors v Botterill & Anor [2010] ScotCS CSOH_84 (06 July 2010)
Section 1(4A) of the Damages (Scotland) Act 1976, as amended, must be interpreted purposively so that the exclusion of persons related by affinity applies only where there is nothing more than a relationship of affinity. Where a step-parent has accepted the deceased as a child of the family, the relationship of affinity does not bar the claim. This construction avoids absurdity, injustice, and discrimination, and gives effect to the clear legislative intent and ECHR rights. The eighth pursuer's pleadings are sufficiently specific and there is no special cause to withhold jury trial.
- Citation
- [2010] ScotCS CSOH_84
- Parties
- Pursuers: Roslyn Evelyn Mykoliw and Others; Defender: Arthur James Botterill; Third Party: Tulloch Transport Limited
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judgment Date
- 06 July 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Damages (fatal Accident) / Procedure Roll (preliminary Legal Issues)
- Outcome
- Eighth pursuer's claim allowed to proceed; issues allowed for jury trial; all questions of expenses reserved.
- Legal Topics
- Damages for Wrongful Death, Title to Sue for Non Patrimonial Loss, Interpretation of Damages (scotland) Act 1976 as Amended, Relationship by Affinity and Consanguinity, Human Rights Act 1998 ECHR Articles 8 and 14, Jury Trial in Civil Claims
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Roslyn Evelyn Mykoliw and Others
Pursuers
Arthur James Botterill
Defender
Tulloch Transport Limited
Third Party
Procedural Posture
Civil Damages (fatal Accident) / Procedure Roll (preliminary Legal Issues)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a step-parent who accepted the deceased as a child of the family is entitled to claim non-patrimonial damages under section 1(4) of the Damages (Scotland) Act 1976 as amended, notwithstanding section 1(4A) excluding persons related by affinity.
- 2 Whether a literal interpretation of section 1(4A) produces absurdity, injustice, or discrimination contrary to legislative intent and ECHR rights.
- 3 Whether the pleadings are sufficiently specific and whether special cause exists to withhold the case from jury trial.
Ratio Decidendi
Section 1(4A) of the Damages (Scotland) Act 1976, as amended, must be interpreted purposively so that the exclusion of persons related by affinity applies only where there is nothing more than a relationship of affinity. Where a step-parent has accepted the deceased as a child of the family, the relationship of affinity does not bar the claim. This construction avoids absurdity, injustice, and discrimination, and gives effect to the clear legislative intent and ECHR rights. The eighth pursuer's pleadings are sufficiently specific and there is no special cause to withhold jury trial.
Court Disposition
Eighth pursuer's claim allowed to proceed; issues allowed for jury trial; all questions of expenses reserved.
Orders
- Motion to dismiss eighth pursuer's claim refused.
- Issues allowed for jury trial.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment