Keane (AP) v Walker Contracts Scotland Ltd [1999] ScotCS 48 (12 February 1999)

Keane (AP) v Walker Contracts Scotland Ltd [1999] ScotCS 48 (12 February 1999)

Special cause exists for withholding the case from jury trial because the pursuer's pleadings are of doubtful relevance and lack sufficient specification regarding the defenders' knowledge of the dangers and the quantification of loss of profit. The pleadings do not adequately set out the factual basis for liability or for the assessment of damages, making the case unsuitable for jury trial.

Citation
[1999] ScotCS 48
Parties
Pursuer: Michael Keane (A. P.); Defender: Walker Contracts (Scotland) Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
12 February 1999
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Action / Procedure Roll Debate on Suitability for Jury Trial
Outcome
Proof before answer allowed; jury trial refused.
Legal Topics
Occupiers' Liability (scotland) Act 1960, Jury Trial Suitability, Pleading Requirements, Loss of Earnings, Services Claim
Tort Law Occupiers' Liability Personal Injury Occupiers' Liability (scotland) Act 1960 Jury Trial Suitability Pleading Requirements Loss of Earnings Services Claim

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

Parties

Michael Keane (A. P.)

Pursuer

Walker Contracts (Scotland) Limited

Defender

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Action / Procedure Roll Debate on Suitability for Jury Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer's pleadings are sufficiently relevant and specific to allow a jury trial
  2. 2 Whether special cause exists to withhold the case from jury trial under section 9 of the Court of Session Act 1988
  3. 3 Whether the pursuer's averments establish actual or imputed knowledge of danger by the defenders

Ratio Decidendi

Special cause exists for withholding the case from jury trial because the pursuer's pleadings are of doubtful relevance and lack sufficient specification regarding the defenders' knowledge of the dangers and the quantification of loss of profit. The pleadings do not adequately set out the factual basis for liability or for the assessment of damages, making the case unsuitable for jury trial.

Court Disposition

Proof before answer allowed; jury trial refused.

Orders

  • Sustain defenders' plea-in-law 1
  • Reserve defenders' plea-in-law 2