Flood v The University Court of The University of Glasgow [2010] ScotCS CSIH_3 (25 November 2009)

Flood v The University Court of The University of Glasgow [2010] ScotCS CSIH_3 (25 November 2009)

The pursuer's averments, taken as a whole, were sufficient to give fair notice of the steps the employer should have taken to prevent harm, given the pleaded facts of excessive workload and lack of effective assistance, and the case should proceed to proof.

Citation
[2010] ScotCS CSIH_3
Parties
Pursuer and Reclaimer: Maureen Flood; Defenders and Respondents: The University Court of The University of Glasgow
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
25 November 2009
Procedural Posture
Reclaiming Motion (appeal) in Civil Action for Damages / Appeal Against Dismissal at Preliminary Stage (debate on Relevancy)
Outcome
Reclaiming motion allowed; interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary recalled; case remitted for Proof Before Answer.
Legal Topics
Employer's Duty of Care, Workplace Stress, Foreseeability of Psychiatric Harm, Pleading Requirements in Negligence
Employment Law Personal Injury Tort Law Employer's Duty of Care Workplace Stress Foreseeability of Psychiatric Harm Pleading Requirements in Negligence

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maureen Flood

Pursuer and Reclaimer

The University Court of The University of Glasgow

Defenders and Respondents

Procedural Posture

Reclaiming Motion (appeal) in Civil Action for Damages / Appeal Against Dismissal at Preliminary Stage (debate on Relevancy)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer's pleadings sufficiently identified the steps the employer should have taken to prevent psychiatric harm from overwork
  2. 2 Whether the employer's duty of care was breached by failing to provide relief or assistance

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer's averments, taken as a whole, were sufficient to give fair notice of the steps the employer should have taken to prevent harm, given the pleaded facts of excessive workload and lack of effective assistance, and the case should proceed to proof.

Court Disposition

Reclaiming motion allowed; interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary recalled; case remitted for Proof Before Answer.

Orders

  • Allow reclaiming motion
  • Recall interlocutor of Lord Ordinary