PATRICIA MAIR v. DSG INTERNATIONAL PLC [2013] ScotSC 68 (19 September 2013)

PATRICIA MAIR v. DSG INTERNATIONAL PLC [2013] ScotSC 68 (19 September 2013)

The pursuer's pleadings did not disclose sufficient averments that psychological injury was reasonably foreseeable to the employer, as required by established case law. The proposed amendment was late, prejudicial, and did not cure the fundamental deficiency. The Sheriff was entitled to refuse the amendment and dismiss the action without proof. The attempt to introduce a case of intentional harm was too late and unsupported by clear averments.

Citation
[2013] ScotSC 68
Parties
Pursuer and Appellant: Patricia Mair; Defender and Respondent: DSG International Plc
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
19 September 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (reparation/personal Injury) / Appeal From Sheriff Court Decision on Amendment, Relevancy, and Dismissal
Outcome
Appeal refused; Sheriff's interlocutors adhered to.
Legal Topics
Employer's Duty of Care, Psychological Injury at Work, Vicarious Liability, Amendment of Pleadings, Intentional Harm, Relevancy of Pleadings
Employment Law Personal Injury Tort/delict Employer's Duty of Care Psychological Injury at Work Vicarious Liability Amendment of Pleadings Intentional Harm +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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Patricia Mair

Pursuer and Appellant

DSG International Plc

Defender and Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (reparation/personal Injury) / Appeal From Sheriff Court Decision on Amendment, Relevancy, and Dismissal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer's pleadings disclosed a relevant case that psychological injury was reasonably foreseeable to the employer
  2. 2 Whether the Sheriff erred in refusing to allow amendment of pleadings
  3. 3 Whether a case of intentional harm could be introduced at a late stage

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer's pleadings did not disclose sufficient averments that psychological injury was reasonably foreseeable to the employer, as required by established case law. The proposed amendment was late, prejudicial, and did not cure the fundamental deficiency. The Sheriff was entitled to refuse the amendment and dismiss the action without proof. The attempt to introduce a case of intentional harm was too late and unsupported by clear averments.

Court Disposition

Appeal refused; Sheriff's interlocutors adhered to.

Orders

  • Refusal of appeal
  • Adherence to Sheriff's interlocutors of 19 January 2012, 28 August 2012, and 17 September 2012