Irvine v. Arco Atholl Limited & Anor [2002] ScotCS 48 (20th February, 2002)

Irvine v. Arco Atholl Limited & Anor [2002] ScotCS 48 (20th February, 2002)

The court held that, on the balance of probabilities and considering all admissible evidence (including hearsay from Miss Hutchinson via Miss Martin), the defenders proved that White Cross were their employers' liability insurers throughout the pursuer's employment. The court found no breach of Article 6 ECHR in relying on the hearsay evidence, given the circumstances and safeguards. Accordingly, the third party is bound to indemnify the defenders for the sums paid to the pursuer.

Citation
[2002] ScotCS 48
Parties
Pursuer: James Hunter Irvine; Defender: Arco Atholl Limited; Third Party: CGU International Insurance PLC
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Procedural Posture
Civil (insurance Indemnity) / Judgment After Proof (trial)
Outcome
Defenders succeed; third party (CGU) is bound to indemnify defenders for sums paid to pursuer.
Legal Topics
Employers' Liability Insurance, Indemnity, Hearsay Evidence, Human Rights (article 6 Echr), Burden of Proof
Insurance Law Civil Procedure Tort Law Employers' Liability Insurance Indemnity Hearsay Evidence Human Rights (article 6 Echr) Burden of Proof

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 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Hunter Irvine

Pursuer

Arco Atholl Limited

Defender

CGU International Insurance PLC

Third Party

Procedural Posture

Civil (insurance Indemnity) / Judgment After Proof (trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether White Cross were the defenders' employers' liability insurers during the period the pursuer was employed (1957-1959)
  2. 2 Whether the third party (CGU) is bound to indemnify the defenders for sums paid to the pursuer
  3. 3 Admissibility and weight of hearsay evidence under Civil Evidence (Scotland) Act 1988

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that, on the balance of probabilities and considering all admissible evidence (including hearsay from Miss Hutchinson via Miss Martin), the defenders proved that White Cross were their employers' liability insurers throughout the pursuer's employment. The court found no breach of Article 6 ECHR in relying on the hearsay evidence, given the circumstances and safeguards. Accordingly, the third party is bound to indemnify the defenders for the sums paid to the pursuer.

Court Disposition

Defenders succeed; third party (CGU) is bound to indemnify defenders for sums paid to pursuer.

Orders

  • Third party to indemnify defenders in respect of sums specified in the letter of 20 September 2001, together with interest at 8% per annum from date of payment to pursuer until reimbursement by third party.