Skinner v. Scottish Ambulance Service [2004] ScotCS 176 (08 July 2004)

Skinner v. Scottish Ambulance Service [2004] ScotCS 176 (08 July 2004)

Regulation 4 of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 does not permit consideration of cost in determining the suitability of work equipment; averments regarding higher cost of alternative equipment are irrelevant and must be excluded from proof.

Citation
[2004] ScotCS 176
Parties
Pursuer and Reclaimer: Iain Henry Skinner; Defenders and Respondents: Scottish Ambulance Service
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
08 July 2004
Procedural Posture
Reclaiming Motion (appeal) / Interlocutory Appeal on Relevancy of Averments; Motion to Exclude Averments From Probation
Outcome
Reclaiming motion allowed; interlocutor of Temporary Judge recalled; pursuer's third plea-in-law sustained; defenders' averments about cost excluded from probation; proof before answer allowed quoad ultra.
Legal Topics
Employer's Liability, Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998, Interpretation of 'suitability' Under Regulation 4, Relevance of Cost in Statutory Duties, Implementation of EU Directives
Employment Law Health and Safety Law Statutory Interpretation Employer's Liability Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 Interpretation of 'suitability' Under Regulation 4 Relevance of Cost in Statutory Duties Implementation of EU Directives

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

Parties

Iain Henry Skinner

Pursuer and Reclaimer

Scottish Ambulance Service

Defenders and Respondents

Procedural Posture

Reclaiming Motion (appeal) / Interlocutory Appeal on Relevancy of Averments; Motion to Exclude Averments From Probation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Regulation 4 of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 permits consideration of cost in determining suitability of work equipment
  2. 2 Whether averments regarding higher cost of safer equipment are relevant to the statutory duty under Regulation 4

Ratio Decidendi

Regulation 4 of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 does not permit consideration of cost in determining the suitability of work equipment; averments regarding higher cost of alternative equipment are irrelevant and must be excluded from proof.

Court Disposition

Reclaiming motion allowed; interlocutor of Temporary Judge recalled; pursuer's third plea-in-law sustained; defenders' averments about cost excluded from probation; proof before answer allowed quoad ultra.

Orders

  • Recall the interlocutor of the Temporary Judge dated 12 March 2004.
  • Sustain the pursuer's third plea-in-law.