Strang v. Zulquernain [2005] ScotSC 60 (15 September 2005)

Strang v. Zulquernain [2005] ScotSC 60 (15 September 2005)

The sheriff erred in law by applying an additional Heil v Rankin enhancement to a solatium figure already based on the Judicial Studies Board Guidelines, which themselves incorporated the Heil v Rankin adjustment. The sheriff also erred in awarding the cost of private surgery in the absence of evidence that the pursuer would actually incur that expense. The correct award is £53,816, reflecting a 5% deduction for pre-accident impairment and appropriate interest, without the cost of private surgery.

Citation
[2005] ScotSC 60
Parties
Pursuer and Respondent: Grace Elizabeth Strang; Defender and Appellant: Syed Babar Zulquernain
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
15 September 2005
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Claim / Appeal From Sheriff Court to Sheriff Principal
Outcome
Appeal sustained. Interlocutor of the sheriff varied. Award reduced to £53,816. Questions of expenses reserved.
Legal Topics
Quantum of Damages, Solatium, Medical Expenses, Mitigation of Loss, Application of Judicial Studies Board Guidelines, Heil V Rankin Enhancement, Section 2(4) Law Reform (personal Injuries) Act 1948
Personal Injury Tort Law Quantum of Damages Solatium Medical Expenses Mitigation of Loss Application of Judicial Studies Board Guidelines Heil V Rankin Enhancement +1 more

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Grace Elizabeth Strang

Pursuer and Respondent

Syed Babar Zulquernain

Defender and Appellant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Claim / Appeal From Sheriff Court to Sheriff Principal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sheriff erred in law by applying an additional Heil v Rankin enhancement to solatium already based on updated Judicial Studies Board Guidelines
  2. 2 Whether the sheriff erred in awarding the cost of private surgery in the absence of evidence that the pursuer would undergo the procedure privately

Ratio Decidendi

The sheriff erred in law by applying an additional Heil v Rankin enhancement to a solatium figure already based on the Judicial Studies Board Guidelines, which themselves incorporated the Heil v Rankin adjustment. The sheriff also erred in awarding the cost of private surgery in the absence of evidence that the pursuer would actually incur that expense. The correct award is £53,816, reflecting a 5% deduction for pre-accident impairment and appropriate interest, without the cost of private surgery.

Court Disposition

Appeal sustained. Interlocutor of the sheriff varied. Award reduced to £53,816. Questions of expenses reserved.

Orders

  • Delete reference to private surgery in finding in fact 19.
  • Substitute £53,816 for £65,978.35 in the interlocutor and findings.