Anderson v. Christian Salvesen Plc [2006] ScotCS CSOH_101 (04 July 2006)

Anderson v. Christian Salvesen Plc [2006] ScotCS CSOH_101 (04 July 2006)

The pursuer's pleadings disclose a classic instrumentality case where he was involved in causing a fatal accident, and the authorities recognize such cases as potentially recoverable for psychiatric injury. The facts must be established at proof before legal limitations can be properly applied; thus, a procedure roll discussion is inappropriate and the case should proceed to proof.

Citation
[2006] ScotCS CSOH_101
Parties
Pursuer: William Anderson; Defenders: Christian Salvesen Plc
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
04 July 2006
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Action / Motion for Procedure Roll Discussion Versus Allowance of Proof
Outcome
Motion for procedure roll discussion refused; case sent to proof.
Legal Topics
Psychiatric Injury, Instrumentality Cases, Primary and Secondary Victims, Relevancy of Pleadings, Proof Before Answer
Tort Personal Injury Employment Law Psychiatric Injury Instrumentality Cases Primary and Secondary Victims Relevancy of Pleadings Proof Before Answer

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Anderson

Pursuer

Christian Salvesen Plc

Defenders

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Action / Motion for Procedure Roll Discussion Versus Allowance of Proof

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer's pleadings disclose a relevant case for recovery of damages for psychiatric injury as an instrumental party to a fatal accident at work
  2. 2 Whether a procedure roll discussion (legal debate) should be allowed or the case should proceed directly to proof under the new personal injuries procedure

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer's pleadings disclose a classic instrumentality case where he was involved in causing a fatal accident, and the authorities recognize such cases as potentially recoverable for psychiatric injury. The facts must be established at proof before legal limitations can be properly applied; thus, a procedure roll discussion is inappropriate and the case should proceed to proof.

Court Disposition

Motion for procedure roll discussion refused; case sent to proof.

Orders

  • Action to proceed to proof under the new personal injuries procedure.