Meldrum v Crolla [2001] ScotCS 91 (20 April 2001)

Meldrum v Crolla [2001] ScotCS 91 (20 April 2001)

After amendment, there was no sufficient complexity or difficulty in the issues of patrimonial loss or medical evidence to justify withholding the case from jury trial. The matter is essentially one of credibility and straightforward fact-finding suitable for a jury.

Citation
[2001] ScotCS 91
Parties
Pursuer: Ian David Meldrum; Defender: Riccardo Crolla
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
20 April 2001
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Action / Application for Jury Trial; Interlocutory Decision
Outcome
Application for jury trial allowed, subject to further submissions on the human rights issue.
Legal Topics
Jury Trial Suitability, Patrimonial Loss, Loss of Employability, Complexity of Medical Evidence, Article 6 ECHR (fair Trial)
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Jury Trial Suitability Patrimonial Loss Loss of Employability Complexity of Medical Evidence Article 6 ECHR (fair Trial)

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

Parties

Ian David Meldrum

Pursuer

Riccardo Crolla

Defender

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Action / Application for Jury Trial; Interlocutory Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the case is suitable for jury trial given alleged complexity of patrimonial loss and medical issues
  2. 2 Whether the pleadings are sufficiently specified after amendment
  3. 3 Whether Article 6 ECHR affects the appropriateness of jury trial

Ratio Decidendi

After amendment, there was no sufficient complexity or difficulty in the issues of patrimonial loss or medical evidence to justify withholding the case from jury trial. The matter is essentially one of credibility and straightforward fact-finding suitable for a jury.

Court Disposition

Application for jury trial allowed, subject to further submissions on the human rights issue.

Orders

  • Case to be put out By Order for counsel to inform the Court about future progress.