ROBERT ALEXANDER THAIN (ap) v. FISHER SERVICES (ABERFELDY) LIMITED [2001] ScotHC 106 (2nd October, 2001)

ROBERT ALEXANDER THAIN (ap) v. FISHER SERVICES (ABERFELDY) LIMITED [2001] ScotHC 106 (2nd October, 2001)

The pursuer's averments regarding loss of pension rights from a private pension scheme are sufficiently relevant and specific to entitle him to a proof before answer. There is no basis for applying a different test of relevancy or specification than would apply to occupational pension schemes. The defenders' arguments regarding double recovery and mitigation are matters for evidence, not for exclusion at the pleading stage.

Citation
[2001] ScotHC 106
Parties
Pursuer: Robert Alexander Thain; Defenders: Fishers Services (Aberfeldy) Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Procedural Posture
Civil Damages for Personal Injury / Procedure Roll (plea in Law on Relevancy and Specification)
Outcome
Defenders' second plea-in-law repelled; proof before answer allowed.
Legal Topics
Loss of Pension Rights, Damages Calculation, Specification of Pleadings, Double Recovery, Tax Advantages in Pension Claims
Employment Law Personal Injury Pensions Law Loss of Pension Rights Damages Calculation Specification of Pleadings Double Recovery Tax Advantages in Pension Claims

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

Parties

Robert Alexander Thain

Pursuer

Fishers Services (Aberfeldy) Limited

Defenders

Procedural Posture

Civil Damages for Personal Injury / Procedure Roll (plea in Law on Relevancy and Specification)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer's averments regarding loss of pension rights and benefits from a private pension scheme are relevant and sufficiently specific to be remitted to probation
  2. 2 Whether the claim constitutes double recovery for loss of wages and pension benefits
  3. 3 Whether further specification is required regarding the nature of the pension loss and the possibility of mitigation by investment of damages

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer's averments regarding loss of pension rights from a private pension scheme are sufficiently relevant and specific to entitle him to a proof before answer. There is no basis for applying a different test of relevancy or specification than would apply to occupational pension schemes. The defenders' arguments regarding double recovery and mitigation are matters for evidence, not for exclusion at the pleading stage.

Court Disposition

Defenders' second plea-in-law repelled; proof before answer allowed.

Orders

  • Repel defenders' second plea-in-law.
  • Allow proof before answer.