Montgomerie v. Glasgow Prestwick International Airport Ltd & Anor [2004] ScotCS 166 (29 June 2004)

Montgomerie v. Glasgow Prestwick International Airport Ltd & Anor [2004] ScotCS 166 (29 June 2004)

The pursuer's pleadings are sufficient to allow proof before answer against both defenders except for statutory cases under Regulation 13(3)(b) and Regulation 6(1), which are excluded as irrelevant; specific periods of inspection need not be averred where facts infer negligence; statutory applicability depends on workplace location and control.

Citation
[2004] ScotCS 166
Parties
Pursuer: William Alexander Montgomerie; First Defender: Glasgow Prestwick International Airport Limited; Second Defender: Gill Aviation Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
29 June 2004
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Damages Action / Procedure Roll Discussion; Interlocutory Judgment
Outcome
Proof before answer allowed against both defenders except for Articles seven and eight, which are excluded from probation; second defenders' first plea-in-law repelled by consent; expenses reserved.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Workplace Safety, Statutory Duties, Inspection Duties, Personal Injury
Tort Employment Health and Safety Negligence Workplace Safety Statutory Duties Inspection Duties Personal Injury

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Alexander Montgomerie

Pursuer

Glasgow Prestwick International Airport Limited

First Defender

Gill Aviation Limited

Second Defender

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Damages Action / Procedure Roll Discussion; Interlocutory Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether pursuer's pleadings are relevant and sufficiently specified against both defenders
  2. 2 Whether failure to engage cargo door catch constitutes negligence
  3. 3 Whether second defenders breached statutory duties under Workplace Regulations and PUWE Regulations

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer's pleadings are sufficient to allow proof before answer against both defenders except for statutory cases under Regulation 13(3)(b) and Regulation 6(1), which are excluded as irrelevant; specific periods of inspection need not be averred where facts infer negligence; statutory applicability depends on workplace location and control.

Court Disposition

Proof before answer allowed against both defenders except for Articles seven and eight, which are excluded from probation; second defenders' first plea-in-law repelled by consent; expenses reserved.

Orders

  • Exclude from probation pursuer's averments in Articles seven and eight of the Condescendence.
  • Repel second defenders' first plea-in-law by consent.