Anderson & Anor v Forbes & Ors [2008] ScotCS CSOH_89 (19 June 2008)

Anderson & Anor v Forbes & Ors [2008] ScotCS CSOH_89 (19 June 2008)

The pleadings as they stand do not sufficiently aver facts to establish possession and control of the common close by the first to fourth, sixth, seventh, and tenth defenders, nor do they adequately plead foreseeability or the basis of duty against the eleventh defenders. The pursuers are given an opportunity to amend their pleadings to address these deficiencies.

Citation
[2008] ScotCS CSOH_89
Parties
Pursuer: Melanie Anderson; Pursuer: Kirsty McAvoy; Defenders: Jonathan Forbes and Others
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
19 June 2008
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Action / Procedure Roll Discussion on Relevancy of Pleadings
Outcome
Case put out By Order for pursuers to amend pleadings
Legal Topics
Occupiers Liability (scotland) Act 1960, Personal Injury, Pleading Requirements, Foreseeability, Duty of Care, Control and Possession of Premises
Delict Occupiers' Liability Occupiers Liability (scotland) Act 1960 Personal Injury Pleading Requirements Foreseeability Duty of Care Control and Possession of Premises

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Melanie Anderson

Pursuer

Kirsty McAvoy

Pursuer

Jonathan Forbes and Others

Defenders

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Action / Procedure Roll Discussion on Relevancy of Pleadings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pleadings sufficiently link the first to fourth defenders to the property
  2. 2 Whether a relevant case averring occupation and control of the premises by the first to tenth defenders has been pled
  3. 3 Whether reasonable foreseeability of the risk of fire has been relevantly pled

Ratio Decidendi

The pleadings as they stand do not sufficiently aver facts to establish possession and control of the common close by the first to fourth, sixth, seventh, and tenth defenders, nor do they adequately plead foreseeability or the basis of duty against the eleventh defenders. The pursuers are given an opportunity to amend their pleadings to address these deficiencies.

Court Disposition

Case put out By Order for pursuers to amend pleadings

Orders

  • Pursuers given opportunity to amend pleadings to address identified shortcomings
  • Question of expenses reserved