Heasman v. J.M. Taylor & Partners [2002] ScotCS 63 (8th March, 2002)

Heasman v. J.M. Taylor & Partners [2002] ScotCS 63 (8th March, 2002)

The system of civil jury trial for personal injury actions in Scotland, including the absence of jury reasons, limited reference to comparables, and the test for appellate interference, does not breach Article 6 ECHR. The procedure as a whole, including judicial directions and the possibility of appeal for gross injustice, provides adequate safeguards for a fair hearing. There is no basis for reading down or declaring incompatible the statutory provisions requiring jury trial, and the defenders' arguments do not establish that the process is unfair or incompatible with the Convention.

Citation
[2002] ScotCS 63
Parties
Pursuer: Matthew Heasman; Defenders: J. M. Taylor & Partners; Interested Party: Scottish Ministers
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Damages Action / Interlocutory Appeal on Suitability for Jury Trial
Outcome
Defenders' plea rejected; case remitted for jury trial.
Legal Topics
Jury Trial in Civil Cases, Article 6 ECHR (right to Fair Trial), Assessment of Damages (solatium), Compatibility of Scottish Jury Trial Procedure With ECHR
Civil Procedure Human Rights Personal Injury Jury Trial in Civil Cases Article 6 ECHR (right to Fair Trial) Assessment of Damages (solatium) Compatibility of Scottish Jury Trial Procedure With ECHR

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 34 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Matthew Heasman

Pursuer

J. M. Taylor & Partners

Defenders

Scottish Ministers

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Damages Action / Interlocutory Appeal on Suitability for Jury Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the system of civil jury trial in Scotland for personal injury actions breach Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights?
  2. 2 Is the lack of jury reasoning, unpredictability of awards, and limited appeal grounds incompatible with a fair hearing?
  3. 3 Should the Court of Session Act 1988 be read down or declared incompatible with the Convention?

Ratio Decidendi

The system of civil jury trial for personal injury actions in Scotland, including the absence of jury reasons, limited reference to comparables, and the test for appellate interference, does not breach Article 6 ECHR. The procedure as a whole, including judicial directions and the possibility of appeal for gross injustice, provides adequate safeguards for a fair hearing. There is no basis for reading down or declaring incompatible the statutory provisions requiring jury trial, and the defenders' arguments do not establish that the process is unfair or incompatible with the Convention.

Court Disposition

Defenders' plea rejected; case remitted for jury trial.

Orders

  • Case remitted to the Lord Ordinary to allow issues for jury trial.
  • No declaration of incompatibility made regarding the Court of Session Act 1988.