Skinner v. Scottish Ambulance Service [2004] ScotCS 65 (12 March 2004)

Skinner v. Scottish Ambulance Service [2004] ScotCS 65 (12 March 2004)

Cost considerations are not wholly irrelevant to the assessment of suitability under Regulation 4; the issue is fact-sensitive and should be determined after enquiry. The pursuer's plea to exclude the defenders' averments on cost from probation is refused.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2004] ScotCS 65
Parties
Pursuer: Iain Henry Skinner; Defenders: Scottish Ambulance Service
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
12 March 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil (employer's Liability) / Procedure Roll (preliminary Plea)
Outcome
Pursuer's third plea-in-law repelled; case allowed to proceed to proof before answer.
Legal Topics
Employer's Duty to Provide Suitable Equipment, Cost Considerations in Statutory Duties, Interpretation of Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998
Employment Law Health and Safety Law Statutory Interpretation Employer's Duty to Provide Suitable Equipment Cost Considerations in Statutory Duties Interpretation of Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998

Source-derived case record

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

Iain Henry Skinner

Pursuer

Scottish Ambulance Service

Defenders

Procedural Posture

Civil (employer's Liability) / Procedure Roll (preliminary Plea)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether cost considerations are relevant to the duty to provide suitable work equipment under Regulation 4 of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998
  2. 2 Whether the employer's averments regarding the cost of safer equipment should be excluded from probation

Ratio Decidendi

Cost considerations are not wholly irrelevant to the assessment of suitability under Regulation 4; the issue is fact-sensitive and should be determined after enquiry. The pursuer's plea to exclude the defenders' averments on cost from probation is refused.

Court Disposition

Pursuer's third plea-in-law repelled; case allowed to proceed to proof before answer.

Orders

  • Refusal to exclude defenders' averments on cost from probation
  • Case to proceed to proof before answer