Gunn v Bowie Or Newman [2001] ScotCS 69 (21 March 2001)

Gunn v Bowie Or Newman [2001] ScotCS 69 (21 March 2001)

Before determining the compatibility of jury trial in personal injury actions with Article 6 ECHR or the interpretation of s.9(b) of the 1988 Act, the court must give notice to the Lord Advocate and Advocate General to allow them to be heard, as the issues may affect the interpretation and operation of primary legislation and have wider public interest implications.

Citation
[2001] ScotCS 69
Parties
Pursuer and Respondent: William John Gunn; Defender and Reclaimer: Mrs. Anne Gillian Bowie or Newman
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
21 March 2001
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Damages Action / Reclaiming Motion (appeal) Against Lord Ordinary's Interlocutor Allowing Issues for Jury Trial
Outcome
Notice to be given to the Lord Advocate and Advocate General; no final determination on the substantive issues at this stage.
Legal Topics
Jury Trial in Personal Injury Actions, Interpretation of Court of Session Act 1988 S.9(b) and S.11, Compatibility With Article 6 ECHR (right to Fair Hearing), Human Rights Act 1998 S.3, S.4, S.5
Civil Procedure Human Rights Personal Injury Jury Trial in Personal Injury Actions Interpretation of Court of Session Act 1988 S.9(b) and S.11 Compatibility With Article 6 ECHR (right to Fair Hearing) Human Rights Act 1998 S.3, S.4, S.5

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

Parties

William John Gunn

Pursuer and Respondent

Mrs. Anne Gillian Bowie or Newman

Defender and Reclaimer

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Damages Action / Reclaiming Motion (appeal) Against Lord Ordinary's Interlocutor Allowing Issues for Jury Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether jury trial for assessment of solatium in personal injury actions is compatible with Article 6 ECHR (right to fair hearing)
  2. 2 Whether s.9(b) of the Court of Session Act 1988 should be 'read down' under s.3 Human Rights Act 1998 to permit proof instead of jury trial
  3. 3 Whether notice to the Crown is required before considering a declaration of incompatibility under s.4 Human Rights Act 1998

Ratio Decidendi

Before determining the compatibility of jury trial in personal injury actions with Article 6 ECHR or the interpretation of s.9(b) of the 1988 Act, the court must give notice to the Lord Advocate and Advocate General to allow them to be heard, as the issues may affect the interpretation and operation of primary legislation and have wider public interest implications.

Court Disposition

Notice to be given to the Lord Advocate and Advocate General; no final determination on the substantive issues at this stage.

Orders

  • Notice under s.5(1) Human Rights Act 1998 to be given to the Lord Advocate (Scottish Ministers) and Advocate General (UK Government) to allow them to be joined and present argument on the interpretation and compatibility of s.9(b) and s.11 of the Court of Session Act 1988.