JWE against LGBT Youth Scotland (Court of Session) [2026] CSOH 6 (28 January 2026)

JWE against LGBT Youth Scotland (Court of Session) [2026] CSOH 6 (28 January 2026)

The pursuer's averments regarding safeguarding, grooming, vicarious liability, and liability for acts of third parties are sufficiently relevant to warrant proof. The law does not preclude liability for harm caused by third parties where the defender's employee actively created the risk by deliberate introduction....

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2026] CSOH 6
Parties
Pursuer: JWE; Defender: LGBT Youth Scotland
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
28 January 2026
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Action / Interlocutory Judgment on Relevancy and Scope of Pleadings Before Proof
Outcome
Defender's motion to exclude averments from probation refused; pursuer's motion to fix proof granted.
Legal Topics
Duty of Care, Safeguarding, Grooming, Vicarious Liability, Liability for Acts of Third Parties
Tort/delict Child Protection Vicarious Liability Duty of Care Safeguarding Grooming Liability for Acts of Third Parties

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

JWE

Pursuer

LGBT Youth Scotland

Defender

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Action / Interlocutory Judgment on Relevancy and Scope of Pleadings Before Proof

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defender owed a duty to safeguard the pursuer from harm by its employees
  2. 2 Whether Scots law recognises grooming as a distinct delict
  3. 3 Whether the defender is vicariously liable for acts of its employees in grooming and introducing the pursuer to exploitative environments

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer's averments regarding safeguarding, grooming, vicarious liability, and liability for acts of third parties are sufficiently relevant to warrant proof. The law does not preclude liability for harm caused by third parties where the defender's employee actively created the risk by deliberate introduction. Whether such liability exists is a matter for evidence.

Court Disposition

Defender's motion to exclude averments from probation refused; pursuer's motion to fix proof granted.

Orders

  • 8-day diet of proof fixed
  • All averments allowed to proceed to proof