Millar & Ors v. Watt & Ors [2004] ScotCS 47 (26 February 2004)

Millar & Ors v. Watt & Ors [2004] ScotCS 47 (26 February 2004)

Special cause exists for withholding the case from a jury due to the unusual procedural posture (first pursuer also being third party), the complexity and potential confusion in quantifying damages (overlap between solatium and Section 1(4) claims, causation issues, and uncertain bases for certain heads of claim), and the multiplicity of parties with differing interests.

Citation
[2004] ScotCS 47
Parties
First Pursuer and Third Party: Craig Andrew Millar; Second Pursuer: Mary Margaret Millar; Third Pursuer: Craig Andrew Millar (child); Fourth Pursuer: Craig Andrew Millar (child); Defender: Mark Anthony Watt & Others; First Minuters: First Minuters (Defender's Insurers); Second Minuters: Motor Insurers Bureau; Third Minuters: First Pursuer's Insurers
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
26 February 2004
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Action (road Traffic Accident) / Motion for Jury Trial Under Rule 43.6(5)(c)
Outcome
Pursuer's motion for jury trial refused; proof allowed.
Legal Topics
Jury Trial, Special Cause, Damages Quantification, Section 1(4) Damages (scotland) Act 1976, Solatium, Psychiatric Injury, Loss of Earnings
Personal Injury Civil Procedure Jury Trial Special Cause Damages Quantification Section 1(4) Damages (scotland) Act 1976 Solatium Psychiatric Injury +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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Craig Andrew Millar

First Pursuer and Third Party

Mary Margaret Millar

Second Pursuer

Craig Andrew Millar (child)

Third Pursuer

Craig Andrew Millar (child)

Fourth Pursuer

Mark Anthony Watt & Others

Defender

First Minuters (Defender's Insurers)

First Minuters

Motor Insurers Bureau

Second Minuters

First Pursuer's Insurers

Third Minuters

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Action (road Traffic Accident) / Motion for Jury Trial Under Rule 43.6(5)(c)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether special cause exists to withhold the case from a jury under Sections 9 and 11 of the Court of Session Act 1988
  2. 2 Whether the presence of a third party who is also a pursuer creates confusion for a jury
  3. 3 Whether the quantification of damages is too complex for a jury

Ratio Decidendi

Special cause exists for withholding the case from a jury due to the unusual procedural posture (first pursuer also being third party), the complexity and potential confusion in quantifying damages (overlap between solatium and Section 1(4) claims, causation issues, and uncertain bases for certain heads of claim), and the multiplicity of parties with differing interests.

Court Disposition

Pursuer's motion for jury trial refused; proof allowed.

Orders

  • Refusal of pursuer's motion for issues (jury trial)
  • Case to proceed by proof (trial by judge)