Syme v. Scottish Borders Council [2002] ScotCS 264 (24 September 2002)

Syme v. Scottish Borders Council [2002] ScotCS 264 (24 September 2002)

Section 34 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 does not confer a private right of action for damages for breach of statutory duty, but merely codifies the common law duty, which is discretionary. The pursuer failed to aver a relevant case of common law negligence, as he did not specify facts showing the defenders acted unreasonably or outside their discretion in prioritising or implementing gritting operations. Accordingly, the action is irrelevant and must be dismissed.

Citation
[2002] ScotCS 264
Parties
Pursuer: George Syme; Defender: Scottish Borders Council
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
24 September 2002
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Action / Procedure Roll Discussion (motion to Dismiss or Delete Pleadings)
Outcome
action dismissed
Legal Topics
Negligence of Public Authorities, Statutory Duty Under Roads (scotland) Act 1984, Duty of Care in Road Maintenance, Discretion of Public Authorities, Personal Injury From Icy Pavement
Tort Administrative Law Statutory Interpretation Negligence of Public Authorities Statutory Duty Under Roads (scotland) Act 1984 Duty of Care in Road Maintenance Discretion of Public Authorities Personal Injury From Icy Pavement

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 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

George Syme

Pursuer

Scottish Borders Council

Defender

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Action / Procedure Roll Discussion (motion to Dismiss or Delete Pleadings)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does section 34 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 confer a private right of action for damages for breach of statutory duty?
  2. 2 Has the pursuer pled a relevant case of common law negligence against the roads authority for failure to grit a pavement?
  3. 3 Is the exercise of discretion by a roads authority in prioritising gritting operations justiciable in an ordinary action for damages?

Ratio Decidendi

Section 34 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 does not confer a private right of action for damages for breach of statutory duty, but merely codifies the common law duty, which is discretionary. The pursuer failed to aver a relevant case of common law negligence, as he did not specify facts showing the defenders acted unreasonably or outside their discretion in prioritising or implementing gritting operations. Accordingly, the action is irrelevant and must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

action dismissed

Orders

  • Action dismissed as irrelevant; no proof before answer allowed.