MacDonald v Siar [2015] ScotCS CSOH_132 (08 October 2015)

MacDonald v Siar [2015] ScotCS CSOH_132 (08 October 2015)

There is no statutory or common law duty on the defenders to provide street lighting at any particular locus or time. Section 35 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 confers a discretionary power, not an absolute duty. The defenders' policy decision to reduce lighting hours was reasonable, followed proper consultation and publicity, and is not justiciable in this context. The pursuer failed to establish a legal basis for negligence or breach of duty.

Citation
[2015] ScotCS CSOH_132
Parties
Pursuer: Michael MacDonald; Defender: Comhairle nan Eilean Siar
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
08 October 2015
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Damages Action / Judgment After Proof
Outcome
Action dismissed
Legal Topics
Duty of Care, Street Lighting, Negligence, Statutory Powers and Duties, Consultation and Notice
Tort Local Government Law Statutory Interpretation Duty of Care Street Lighting Negligence Statutory Powers and Duties Consultation and Notice

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael MacDonald

Pursuer

Comhairle nan Eilean Siar

Defender

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Damages Action / Judgment After Proof

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is there a common law duty on a roads authority to provide street lighting?
  2. 2 Does section 35 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 impose a statutory duty to provide street lighting?
  3. 3 Was there negligence in the exercise of discretion regarding street lighting?

Ratio Decidendi

There is no statutory or common law duty on the defenders to provide street lighting at any particular locus or time. Section 35 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 confers a discretionary power, not an absolute duty. The defenders' policy decision to reduce lighting hours was reasonable, followed proper consultation and publicity, and is not justiciable in this context. The pursuer failed to establish a legal basis for negligence or breach of duty.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed