Vetco Gray UK Ltd v. Slessor 7 Anor [2006] ScotCS CSIH_11 (22 February 2006)

Vetco Gray UK Ltd v. Slessor 7 Anor [2006] ScotCS CSIH_11 (22 February 2006)

The convening of a third party does not, by itself, deprive the pursuer of the right to jury trial; the court retains discretion to determine the appropriate mode(s) of enquiry, and in this case, the proper course is to resolve the indemnity dispute by proof before answer before deciding on the allowance of issues for jury trial.

Citation
[2006] ScotCS CSIH_11
Parties
Defender and Reclaimer: Vetco Gray UK Limited; Pursuer and Respondent: Gavin Slessor; Third Party and Respondent: Vetco Gray Controls Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
22 February 2006
Procedural Posture
Reclaiming Motion (appeal) in Personal Injury Action / Interlocutory (procedural) Appeal Regarding Mode of Enquiry and Allowance of Issues
Outcome
Reclaiming motion allowed; interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary recalled.
Legal Topics
Jury Trial Entitlement, Third Party Procedure, Indemnity Dispute, Mode of Enquiry, Court Discretion
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Employment Law Jury Trial Entitlement Third Party Procedure Indemnity Dispute Mode of Enquiry Court Discretion

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 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vetco Gray UK Limited

Defender and Reclaimer

Gavin Slessor

Pursuer and Respondent

Vetco Gray Controls Limited

Third Party and Respondent

Procedural Posture

Reclaiming Motion (appeal) in Personal Injury Action / Interlocutory (procedural) Appeal Regarding Mode of Enquiry and Allowance of Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the convening of a third party deprives the pursuer of the right to jury trial
  2. 2 Whether the court can order different modes of enquiry (proof before answer and jury trial) for different issues in the same action
  3. 3 Whether the allowance of issues for jury trial was premature before resolution of the indemnity dispute

Ratio Decidendi

The convening of a third party does not, by itself, deprive the pursuer of the right to jury trial; the court retains discretion to determine the appropriate mode(s) of enquiry, and in this case, the proper course is to resolve the indemnity dispute by proof before answer before deciding on the allowance of issues for jury trial.

Court Disposition

Reclaiming motion allowed; interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary recalled.

Orders

  • Allow proof before answer on the indemnity dispute between defender and third party.
  • Sist (stay) the cause so far as it relates to the pursuer's claim against the defender.