Dunn v. Solaglass Limited & Anor [2002] ScotCS 149 (24th May, 2002)

Dunn v. Solaglass Limited & Anor [2002] ScotCS 149 (24th May, 2002)

The pursuer's pleadings provided sufficient specification of the accident and statutory breaches to entitle him to a proof before answer against both defenders. The pleadings established a relevant case that both defenders exercised control to some extent over the vehicle and its maintenance, sufficient for the statutory obligations to potentially apply. The contractual indemnity claim between defenders was not irrelevant on the pleadings and should also proceed to proof.

Citation
[2002] ScotCS 149
Parties
Pursuer: Ian Dunn; First Defender: Solaglass Ltd; Second Defender: Tibbett & Britten UK PLC
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Action / Procedure Roll (pleadings Debate) – Interlocutory Decision
Outcome
Proof before answer allowed against both defenders; certain amendments to pleadings permitted; pursuer's fourth plea-in-law repelled by consent.
Legal Topics
Employer's Liability, Workplace Safety, Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1992, Workplace (health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992, Contractual Indemnity, Apportionment of Liability
Employment Law Health and Safety Law Contract Law Employer's Liability Workplace Safety Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1992 Workplace (health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 Contractual Indemnity +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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ian Dunn

Pursuer

Solaglass Ltd

First Defender

Tibbett & Britten UK PLC

Second Defender

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Action / Procedure Roll (pleadings Debate) – Interlocutory Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer's pleadings provide sufficient specification of the accident and statutory breaches to proceed to proof
  2. 2 Whether the defenders had sufficient control over the vehicle and its equipment to be liable under the relevant regulations
  3. 3 Whether the contractual terms between the defenders provide an indemnity for personal injury claims

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer's pleadings provided sufficient specification of the accident and statutory breaches to entitle him to a proof before answer against both defenders. The pleadings established a relevant case that both defenders exercised control to some extent over the vehicle and its maintenance, sufficient for the statutory obligations to potentially apply. The contractual indemnity claim between defenders was not irrelevant on the pleadings and should also proceed to proof.

Court Disposition

Proof before answer allowed against both defenders; certain amendments to pleadings permitted; pursuer's fourth plea-in-law repelled by consent.

Orders

  • Allow closed record to be amended as specified.
  • Repel pursuer's fourth plea-in-law by consent.