Nicol v Clark & Ors [2001] ScotCS 179 (5 July 2001)

Nicol v Clark & Ors [2001] ScotCS 179 (5 July 2001)

The first defender, through its employees, had overall control of the site and failed to extend safety barriers, leaving a gap that created a foreseeable risk. This omission made it almost inevitable that the first defender would be liable for the accident, satisfying the test for interim damages. The same level of certainty was not met for the second and third defenders at this stage.

Citation
[2001] ScotCS 179
Parties
Pursuer: Andrew Nicol; First Defender: The Rt. Hon. Lynda Clark MP, QC; Second Defender: Second Defender; Third Defender: Third Defender
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
05 July 2001
Procedural Posture
Action of Reparation / Reclaiming Motion Against Interim Damages Award
Outcome
Interim damages awarded against first defender only; motion refused against second and third defenders.
Legal Topics
Interim Damages, Employer Liability, Site Safety, Multiple Defenders, Rule of Court 43.9
Tort Personal Injury Civil Procedure Interim Damages Employer Liability Site Safety Multiple Defenders Rule of Court 43.9

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andrew Nicol

Pursuer

The Rt. Hon. Lynda Clark MP, QC

First Defender

Second Defender

Second Defender

Third Defender

Third Defender

Procedural Posture

Action of Reparation / Reclaiming Motion Against Interim Damages Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer is almost certain to succeed on liability against each defender for interim damages under Rule of Court 43.9
  2. 2 Whether the first defender (Ministry of Defence) is liable for site safety failures leading to the accident
  3. 3 Whether the second and third defenders (driver and employer) are almost certainly liable for the accident

Ratio Decidendi

The first defender, through its employees, had overall control of the site and failed to extend safety barriers, leaving a gap that created a foreseeable risk. This omission made it almost inevitable that the first defender would be liable for the accident, satisfying the test for interim damages. The same level of certainty was not met for the second and third defenders at this stage.

Court Disposition

Interim damages awarded against first defender only; motion refused against second and third defenders.

Orders

  • First defender to pay interim damages of £150,000 to the pursuer.
  • Motion for interim damages against second and third defenders refused.