MALONE AGAINST THE LORD ADVOCATE [2018] ScotCS CSOH_86 (17 August 2018)

MALONE AGAINST THE LORD ADVOCATE [2018] ScotCS CSOH_86 (17 August 2018)

The pursuer's pleadings, taken as a whole and construed generously, are sufficient to allow a proof before answer on whether the employer (COPFS, for whom the Lord Advocate is convened) breached its duty of care by failing to prevent foreseeable psychiatric harm arising from workplace stress. The action is not bound to fail on the basis of the current pleadings, despite deficiencies in clarity and specification. The case is properly directed against the Lord Advocate as the responsible minister for the employer, and the pleadings disclose a potentially relevant case of systemic failure rather than individual fault.

Citation
[2018] ScotCS CSOH_86
Parties
Pursuer: Laura Malone; Defender: The Lord Advocate
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
17 August 2018
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Action (damages for Psychiatric Injury) / Procedure Roll (pleadings Challenge)
Outcome
Proof before answer allowed; defender's motion for dismissal refused.
Legal Topics
Employer's Duty of Care, Workplace Stress, Psychiatric Injury, Vicarious Liability, Foreseeability, Causation, Health and Safety at Work Regulations
Employment Law Personal Injury Administrative Law Employer's Duty of Care Workplace Stress Psychiatric Injury Vicarious Liability Foreseeability +2 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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Laura Malone

Pursuer

The Lord Advocate

Defender

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Action (damages for Psychiatric Injury) / Procedure Roll (pleadings Challenge)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer's pleadings disclose a relevant case that the defender breached a duty of care causing psychiatric injury due to workplace stress.
  2. 2 Whether the Lord Advocate is the correct party to sue for alleged failures of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS).
  3. 3 Whether the risk of psychiatric harm was reasonably foreseeable to the employer.

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer's pleadings, taken as a whole and construed generously, are sufficient to allow a proof before answer on whether the employer (COPFS, for whom the Lord Advocate is convened) breached its duty of care by failing to prevent foreseeable psychiatric harm arising from workplace stress. The action is not bound to fail on the basis of the current pleadings, despite deficiencies in clarity and specification. The case is properly directed against the Lord Advocate as the responsible minister for the employer, and the pleadings disclose a potentially relevant case of systemic failure rather than individual fault.

Court Disposition

Proof before answer allowed; defender's motion for dismissal refused.

Orders

  • Allow proof before answer.
  • Refuse defender's motion to dismiss the action as irrelevant.