Pratt v The Scottish Ministers [2013] ScotCS CSIH_17 (14 March 2013)

Pratt v The Scottish Ministers [2013] ScotCS CSIH_17 (14 March 2013)

The court found that although SPS owed the pursuer a duty to offer early counselling and support of the sort provided by the Barlinnie Care Team, SPS was not in breach of that duty because the pursuer received equivalent support through medical professionals. Furthermore, the pursuer failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that referral to the Barlinnie Care Team would have prevented or materially reduced his psychiatric injury.

Citation
[2013] ScotCS CSIH_17
Parties
Pursuer and Reclaimer: Edward Pratt; Defenders and Respondents: The Scottish Ministers
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
14 March 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (reclaiming Motion) / Appeal From Lord Ordinary's Decision After Proof on Liability
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; defenders assoilzied from conclusions of the summons.
Legal Topics
Duty of Care, Psychiatric Injury, Employer Liability, Counselling and Support in Workplace
Tort Employment Law Personal Injury Duty of Care Psychiatric Injury Employer Liability Counselling and Support in Workplace

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Edward Pratt

Pursuer and Reclaimer

The Scottish Ministers

Defenders and Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (reclaiming Motion) / Appeal From Lord Ordinary's Decision After Proof on Liability

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the Scottish Prison Service breach its duty of care by failing to provide early counselling and support to the pursuer after a traumatic workplace incident?
  2. 2 Was the failure to refer the pursuer to the Barlinnie Care Team causative of his psychiatric injury?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that although SPS owed the pursuer a duty to offer early counselling and support of the sort provided by the Barlinnie Care Team, SPS was not in breach of that duty because the pursuer received equivalent support through medical professionals. Furthermore, the pursuer failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that referral to the Barlinnie Care Team would have prevented or materially reduced his psychiatric injury.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; defenders assoilzied from conclusions of the summons.

Orders

  • No breach of duty found; claim for damages rejected.
  • No order for compensation or further action against the Scottish Ministers.