Application for permission to Appeal to the Court of Session (Courts Reform (Scotland) Act 2014, section 113) by DS in the cause DS against NHS Grampian (Sheriff Appeal Court Civil) [2025] SACCIV 32 (23 September 2025)

Application for permission to Appeal to the Court of Session (Courts Reform (Scotland) Act 2014, section 113) by DS in the cause DS against NHS Grampian (Sheriff Appeal Court Civil) [2025] SACCIV 32 (23 September 2025)

The applicant failed to establish negligence as the expert evidence against negligence was found to be respectable, responsible, and logically held. The matters raised were fact-specific and did not raise an important point of principle or practice, nor any compelling reason for permission to appeal. The applicant had no reasonable prospects of success on further appeal.

Citation
[2025] SACCIV 32
Parties
Applicant, Pursuer, Appellant, Cross Respondent: DS; Defender, Respondent, Cross Appellant: NHS Grampian
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
23 September 2025
Procedural Posture
Application for Permission to Appeal / Post Appeal, Permission to Appeal to Court of Session
Outcome
Permission to appeal to the Court of Session refused.
Legal Topics
Expert Evidence, Permission to Appeal, Negligence, Causation
Civil Procedure Medical Negligence Expert Evidence Permission to Appeal Negligence Causation

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

DS

Applicant, Pursuer, Appellant, Cross Respondent

NHS Grampian

Defender, Respondent, Cross Appellant

Procedural Posture

Application for Permission to Appeal / Post Appeal, Permission to Appeal to Court of Session

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission to appeal to the Court of Session should be granted under section 113(2) of the Courts Reform (Scotland) Act 2014
  2. 2 Whether the appeal raises an important point of principle or practice
  3. 3 Whether there is a compelling reason for the Court of Session to hear the appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to establish negligence as the expert evidence against negligence was found to be respectable, responsible, and logically held. The matters raised were fact-specific and did not raise an important point of principle or practice, nor any compelling reason for permission to appeal. The applicant had no reasonable prospects of success on further appeal.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal to the Court of Session refused.

Orders

  • No expenses due to or by either party.