Campbell V. The University of Edinburgh [2004] ScotCS 114 (04 May 2004)

Campbell V. The University of Edinburgh [2004] ScotCS 114 (04 May 2004)

The pursuer failed to aver a relevant case that psychiatric injury was or ought to have been reasonably foreseeable to any person within the senior management of the University or any other person for whom the defenders were responsible. The pleadings did not identify the relevant employees or specify the acts or omissions constituting negligence, and thus did not disclose a relevant case of employer's liability for psychiatric injury.

Citation
[2004] ScotCS 114
Parties
Pursuer: Dr Alan Campbell; Defender: The University of Edinburgh
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
04 May 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Damages for Psychiatric Injury (employer's Liability) / Procedure Roll Hearing on Preliminary Pleas (time Bar and Relevancy)
Outcome
Action dismissed
Legal Topics
Employer's Duty of Care, Psychiatric Injury, Vicarious Liability, Limitation of Actions, Relevancy of Pleadings
Employment Law Tort/delict Personal Injury Employer's Duty of Care Psychiatric Injury Vicarious Liability Limitation of Actions Relevancy of Pleadings

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr Alan Campbell

Pursuer

The University of Edinburgh

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil Damages for Psychiatric Injury (employer's Liability) / Procedure Roll Hearing on Preliminary Pleas (time Bar and Relevancy)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the action is time-barred under section 17 of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973
  2. 2 Whether the pursuer's pleadings disclose a relevant case of employer's liability for psychiatric injury

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer failed to aver a relevant case that psychiatric injury was or ought to have been reasonably foreseeable to any person within the senior management of the University or any other person for whom the defenders were responsible. The pleadings did not identify the relevant employees or specify the acts or omissions constituting negligence, and thus did not disclose a relevant case of employer's liability for psychiatric injury.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed

Orders

  • Second plea-in-law for the defenders sustained
  • Action dismissed