Butler v. Grampian University Hospitals Nhs Trust [2002] ScotCS 142 (22nd May, 2002)

Butler v. Grampian University Hospitals Nhs Trust [2002] ScotCS 142 (22nd May, 2002)

The pursuer's averments regarding the inadequacy of the toilet cubicle and breaches of Regulations 5(1) and 10(1) are relevant and sufficiently specific to proceed to proof, but the case based on Regulation 11(1) is irrelevant as the toilet cubicle does not constitute a 'workstation' under the regulations.

Citation
[2002] ScotCS 142
Parties
Pursuer: Caroline Butler; Defenders: Grampian University Hospitals NHS Trust
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Damages Action / Procedure Roll Hearing on Relevancy and Specification
Outcome
Partial exclusion of averments; proof before answer allowed on remaining issues.
Legal Topics
Employer's Duty of Care, Workplace Safety, Manual Handling, Statutory Interpretation, Workplace (health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992, Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992
Employment Law Personal Injury Health and Safety Employer's Duty of Care Workplace Safety Manual Handling Statutory Interpretation Workplace (health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 +1 more

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

Parties

Caroline Butler

Pursuer

Grampian University Hospitals NHS Trust

Defenders

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Damages Action / Procedure Roll Hearing on Relevancy and Specification

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer's pleadings are relevant and sufficiently specific to proceed to proof
  2. 2 Whether the defenders breached common law and statutory duties regarding workplace safety
  3. 3 Whether the toilet cubicle constituted a 'workstation' under the Workplace Regulations

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer's averments regarding the inadequacy of the toilet cubicle and breaches of Regulations 5(1) and 10(1) are relevant and sufficiently specific to proceed to proof, but the case based on Regulation 11(1) is irrelevant as the toilet cubicle does not constitute a 'workstation' under the regulations.

Court Disposition

Partial exclusion of averments; proof before answer allowed on remaining issues.

Orders

  • Averments in article 4 relating to Regulation 11(1) excluded from probation.
  • Proof before answer allowed on all other issues.