Toner v. .McLeod [2006] ScotCS CSOH_22 (08 February 2006)

Toner v. .McLeod [2006] ScotCS CSOH_22 (08 February 2006)

The court found that the pursuer's pleadings lacked an averment that the defender's conduct was such that no ordinarily competent dentist would have acted similarly, rendering the pleadings of doubtful relevancy for jury trial. The question of relevancy was not argued, so the case was put out By Order for further submissions.

Citation
[2006] ScotCS CSOH_22
Parties
Pursuer: Maureen Toner; Defender: John M McLeod
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
08 February 2006
Procedural Posture
Professional Negligence (medical/dental) / Interlocutory Decision on Suitability for Jury Trial
Outcome
Case put out By Order for further submissions on relevancy; no final decision on jury trial suitability or merits.
Legal Topics
Professional Negligence, Jury Trial Procedure, Pleadings Relevancy, Causation, Contributory Negligence
Tort Medical Negligence Professional Negligence Jury Trial Procedure Pleadings Relevancy Causation Contributory Negligence

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maureen Toner

Pursuer

John M McLeod

Defender

Procedural Posture

Professional Negligence (medical/dental) / Interlocutory Decision on Suitability for Jury Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the case is suitable for jury trial given alleged complexity and pleadings
  2. 2 Whether the pursuer's pleadings are relevant and sufficient for jury trial in a professional negligence claim

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the pursuer's pleadings lacked an averment that the defender's conduct was such that no ordinarily competent dentist would have acted similarly, rendering the pleadings of doubtful relevancy for jury trial. The question of relevancy was not argued, so the case was put out By Order for further submissions.

Court Disposition

Case put out By Order for further submissions on relevancy; no final decision on jury trial suitability or merits.

Orders

  • Case to be put out By Order for parties to consider positions and make further submissions or applications.
  • Opinion on liability, contributory negligence, and expenses reserved.