RULE v HAZELHAW PROPERTIES Ltd AND SCOTTISH POWER UK PLC [2017] ScotSC 1 (10 January 2017)

RULE v HAZELHAW PROPERTIES Ltd AND SCOTTISH POWER UK PLC [2017] ScotSC 1 (10 January 2017)

The defender's averments, taken broadly and assuming proof, are sufficient to warrant an inquiry into the facts regarding the third party's status as occupier, the link between its acts or omissions and the accident, and the operation of the indemnity clause. The case is not bound to fail on relevancy or specification grounds.

Citation
[2017] ScotSC 1
Parties
Pursuer: David Rule; Defender: Hazelhaw Properties Limited; Third Party: Scottish Power UK PLC
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
10 January 2017
Procedural Posture
Personal Injuries Action / Debate on Third Party's Preliminary Pleas
Outcome
Proof before answer allowed; all preliminary pleas reserved.
Legal Topics
Occupiers' Liability (scotland) Act 1960, Workplace (health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992, Indemnity Under Lease, Duty of Care, Pleading Specification
Tort Occupiers' Liability Contract Occupiers' Liability (scotland) Act 1960 Workplace (health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 Indemnity Under Lease Duty of Care Pleading Specification

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 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Rule

Pursuer

Hazelhaw Properties Limited

Defender

Scottish Power UK PLC

Third Party

Procedural Posture

Personal Injuries Action / Debate on Third Party's Preliminary Pleas

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defender's pleadings against the third party are irrelevant or lacking in specification
  2. 2 Whether the third party owed a duty of care under the Occupiers' Liability (Scotland) Act 1960
  3. 3 Whether the third party is an 'occupier' under the 1960 Act

Ratio Decidendi

The defender's averments, taken broadly and assuming proof, are sufficient to warrant an inquiry into the facts regarding the third party's status as occupier, the link between its acts or omissions and the accident, and the operation of the indemnity clause. The case is not bound to fail on relevancy or specification grounds.

Court Disposition

Proof before answer allowed; all preliminary pleas reserved.

Orders

  • Assign a hearing to address expenses of the debate and further procedure.