Johnston (AP) v JT Inglis & Sons Ltd [1999] ScotCS 295 (14 December 1999)

Johnston (AP) v JT Inglis & Sons Ltd [1999] ScotCS 295 (14 December 1999)

No special cause exists in this case to refuse issues for jury trial; the pleadings as amended are relevant and sufficiently specified, and the legal and factual issues are not too complex for a jury.

Citation
[1999] ScotCS 295
Parties
Pursuer: Neil Johnston (AP); Defenders: J. T. Inglis & Sons Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
14 December 1999
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Reparation (industrial Accident) / Procedure Roll Hearing on Whether Issues Should Be Allowed for Jury Trial
Outcome
First and second pleas-in-law for the defenders repelled; issues allowed for jury trial.
Legal Topics
Res Ipsa Loquitur, Employer's Duty of Care, Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1992, Specification of Pleadings, Jury Trial Suitability
Personal Injury Employment Law Health and Safety Res Ipsa Loquitur Employer's Duty of Care Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1992 Specification of Pleadings Jury Trial Suitability

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Neil Johnston (AP)

Pursuer

J. T. Inglis & Sons Limited

Defenders

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Reparation (industrial Accident) / Procedure Roll Hearing on Whether Issues Should Be Allowed for Jury Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether special cause exists to refuse issues for jury trial
  2. 2 Adequacy of specification in pleadings regarding breaches of Regulations 5 and 6 of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1992
  3. 3 Complexity of res ipsa loquitur and its suitability for jury trial

Ratio Decidendi

No special cause exists in this case to refuse issues for jury trial; the pleadings as amended are relevant and sufficiently specified, and the legal and factual issues are not too complex for a jury.

Court Disposition

First and second pleas-in-law for the defenders repelled; issues allowed for jury trial.

Orders

  • Pursuer allowed to amend pleadings as per adjusted minute of amendment.
  • Pursuer found liable to defenders in expenses occasioned by the amendment procedure.