JAMES GOLIGHER v FLOW PART Ltd [2016] ScotSC 39 (20 May 2016)

JAMES GOLIGHER v FLOW PART Ltd [2016] ScotSC 39 (20 May 2016)

The sheriff refused the motions to sist because the sheriff court lacks the power to adopt a blanket sist policy as in the Court of Session, the proposed sist would have little or no practical effect given existing timetables, and there is no procedural step that defenders are unable to take within the proposed sist period. Any difficulties in compliance with timetables should be addressed by individual motions, not by a general sist.

Citation
[2016] ScotSC 39
Parties
Pursuer: James Goligher; Defender: Flow Part Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
20 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Action / Interlocutory (motion to Sist)
Outcome
Motions to sist refused.
Legal Topics
Pleural Plaques, Sist of Proceedings, Case Management, Sheriff Court Practice
Personal Injury Civil Procedure Pleural Plaques Sist of Proceedings Case Management Sheriff Court Practice

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 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Goligher

Pursuer

Flow Part Limited

Defender

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Action / Interlocutory (motion to Sist)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should sist (stay) the proceedings in pleural plaques actions to allow for production and consideration of pursuer's statements with a view to settlement.
  2. 2 Whether the sheriff court has the power to adopt a blanket policy or practice similar to the Court of Session Direction No. 2 of 2012.

Ratio Decidendi

The sheriff refused the motions to sist because the sheriff court lacks the power to adopt a blanket sist policy as in the Court of Session, the proposed sist would have little or no practical effect given existing timetables, and there is no procedural step that defenders are unable to take within the proposed sist period. Any difficulties in compliance with timetables should be addressed by individual motions, not by a general sist.

Court Disposition

Motions to sist refused.

Orders

  • Motions to sist refused in all cases.
  • Expenses occasioned by the motions awarded to the pursuers.