King v Advocate General for Scotland [2008] ScotCS CSOH_166 (05 December 2008)

King v Advocate General for Scotland [2008] ScotCS CSOH_166 (05 December 2008)

The court held that certain aspects of the pursuer's pleadings lacked sufficient specification and fair notice, particularly regarding structural damage, loss of income, and the business plan. However, claims relating to nuisance, ECHR infringement, veterinary bills, and diminution in property value were sufficiently specified to proceed to proof. Wholesale incorporation of the business plan was not permissible, but incorporation of certain expert and medical reports was allowed.

Citation
[2008] ScotCS CSOH_166
Parties
Pursuer: Alyson King; Defender: Dr M Clarke QC, MP, The Advocate General for Scotland
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
05 December 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil / Debate on Pleadings (procedural Challenge Before Proof)
Outcome
Certain averments excluded from probation; case to proceed on remaining issues.
Legal Topics
Nuisance, Low Flying Aircraft, Article 8 ECHR, Protocol 1 ECHR, Specification of Pleadings, Damages
Tort Human Rights Nuisance Low Flying Aircraft Article 8 ECHR Protocol 1 ECHR Specification of Pleadings Damages

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alyson King

Pursuer

Dr M Clarke QC, MP, The Advocate General for Scotland

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Debate on Pleadings (procedural Challenge Before Proof)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer's pleadings provide sufficient specification to proceed to proof on claims of nuisance and ECHR infringement
  2. 2 Whether incorporation of expert and business reports into pleadings is permissible
  3. 3 Whether specific heads of loss are adequately specified

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that certain aspects of the pursuer's pleadings lacked sufficient specification and fair notice, particularly regarding structural damage, loss of income, and the business plan. However, claims relating to nuisance, ECHR infringement, veterinary bills, and diminution in property value were sufficiently specified to proceed to proof. Wholesale incorporation of the business plan was not permissible, but incorporation of certain expert and medical reports was allowed.

Court Disposition

Certain averments excluded from probation; case to proceed on remaining issues.

Orders

  • Averments relating to structural damage, loss of income, and business plan excluded from probation.
  • Averments relating to veterinary bills and diminution in property value allowed to proceed to proof.