Kendal & Anor v Davies [2000] ScotCS 230 (17 August 2000)

Kendal & Anor v Davies [2000] ScotCS 230 (17 August 2000)

The pursuers' averments regarding necessary services and paid care lacked sufficient specification to give the defender fair notice of the nature, extent, and value of the claim, and thus certain passages were excluded from probation. However, averments regarding services rendered by the first pursuer's mother were sufficiently specified for proof before answer.

Citation
[2000] ScotCS 230
Parties
Pursuers: John Kendal and another; Defender: Carl Davies
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
17 August 2000
Procedural Posture
Civil Damages / Interlocutory (debate on Specification of Pleadings)
Outcome
Defender's first and third pleas-in-law sustained in part; specified passages excluded from probation; proof before answer allowed on remaining averments; expenses reserved.
Legal Topics
Quantum of Damages, Specification of Pleadings, Necessary Services, Paid Care, Section 8 Administration of Justice Act 1982
Personal Injury Civil Procedure Quantum of Damages Specification of Pleadings Necessary Services Paid Care Section 8 Administration of Justice Act 1982

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Kendal and another

Pursuers

Carl Davies

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil Damages / Interlocutory (debate on Specification of Pleadings)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuers' averments regarding necessary services and paid care provide sufficient specification to give fair notice to the defender.
  2. 2 Whether claims for necessary services and paid care should be valued based on the value of services rendered or on the earnings foregone by the relative providing care.

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuers' averments regarding necessary services and paid care lacked sufficient specification to give the defender fair notice of the nature, extent, and value of the claim, and thus certain passages were excluded from probation. However, averments regarding services rendered by the first pursuer's mother were sufficiently specified for proof before answer.

Court Disposition

Defender's first and third pleas-in-law sustained in part; specified passages excluded from probation; proof before answer allowed on remaining averments; expenses reserved.

Orders

  • Excluded from probation the passages at p.14B-14D and p.14E-15B relating to necessary services and paid care by the second pursuer.
  • Remitted the passage at p.13B-C regarding services by the first pursuer's mother to probation.