Sturgeon v. Gallagher, [2002] ScotCS 288 (06 November 2002)

Sturgeon v. Gallagher, [2002] ScotCS 288 (06 November 2002)

The pursuer's claim for extra expenditure is irrelevant and insufficiently specific because such expenditure is already included in the calculation of partnership loss of profits forming the basis of the loss of earnings claim. The claim for the son's services under Section 8 is also irrelevant because the services were rendered to the partnership in a commercial context under contract, not as necessary personal services to the injured person, and thus fall outside the scope of Section 8.

Citation
[2002] ScotCS 288
Parties
Pursuer: William Sturgeon; Defender: Andrew Frazer Gallagher
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
06 November 2002
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Damages Action / Debate on Relevancy and Specification of Averments Prior to Proof
Outcome
Averments regarding extra expenditure and the claim under Section 8 are excluded from probation, subject to the pursuer being given an opportunity to amend the pleadings regarding extra expenditure.
Legal Topics
Loss of Earnings, Extra Expenditure, Relatives' Services, Section 8 Administration of Justice Act 1982, Relevancy of Pleadings
Personal Injury Damages Civil Procedure Loss of Earnings Extra Expenditure Relatives' Services Section 8 Administration of Justice Act 1982 Relevancy of Pleadings

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 12
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Sturgeon

Pursuer

Andrew Frazer Gallagher

Defender

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Damages Action / Debate on Relevancy and Specification of Averments Prior to Proof

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer can claim extra expenditure as a separate head of damages in addition to loss of earnings based on partnership profits
  2. 2 Whether services rendered by the pursuer's son to the farming partnership are claimable under Section 8 of the Administration of Justice Act 1982

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer's claim for extra expenditure is irrelevant and insufficiently specific because such expenditure is already included in the calculation of partnership loss of profits forming the basis of the loss of earnings claim. The claim for the son's services under Section 8 is also irrelevant because the services were rendered to the partnership in a commercial context under contract, not as necessary personal services to the injured person, and thus fall outside the scope of Section 8.

Court Disposition

Averments regarding extra expenditure and the claim under Section 8 are excluded from probation, subject to the pursuer being given an opportunity to amend the pleadings regarding extra expenditure.

Orders

  • Case put out By Order to allow the pursuer to consider amending the averment on extra expenditure.