Baird v. Cowie [2006] ScotCS CSOH_168 (27 October 2006)

Baird v. Cowie [2006] ScotCS CSOH_168 (27 October 2006)

The pursuer's pleadings and Statement of Value, considered in the context of the current procedural rules, provided fair notice of the claims. The lack of certain details did not amount to 'special cause' to withhold the case from jury trial. The defender had adequate notice and means to investigate and challenge the claims at trial. There was no doubtful relevancy or procedural unfairness justifying removal from jury trial.

Citation
[2006] ScotCS CSOH_168
Parties
Pursuer: Samantha Baird; Defender: Graham Cowie
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
27 October 2006
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Action (road Traffic Accident) / Interlocutory Application Regarding Suitability for Jury Trial
Outcome
Application to withhold case from jury trial refused; issues allowed for jury trial.
Legal Topics
Specification of Damages, Jury Trial—special Cause, Fair Notice, Personal Injury Quantum, Procedural Rules—chapter 43
Personal Injury Civil Procedure Specification of Damages Jury Trial—special Cause Fair Notice Personal Injury Quantum Procedural Rules—chapter 43

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 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 15
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samantha Baird

Pursuer

Graham Cowie

Defender

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Action (road Traffic Accident) / Interlocutory Application Regarding Suitability for Jury Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether lack of specification in the pursuer's pleadings and Statement of Value constitutes 'special cause' to withhold the case from jury trial
  2. 2 Whether the pursuer's claims for damages are of doubtful relevancy or lack fair notice

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer's pleadings and Statement of Value, considered in the context of the current procedural rules, provided fair notice of the claims. The lack of certain details did not amount to 'special cause' to withhold the case from jury trial. The defender had adequate notice and means to investigate and challenge the claims at trial. There was no doubtful relevancy or procedural unfairness justifying removal from jury trial.

Court Disposition

Application to withhold case from jury trial refused; issues allowed for jury trial.

Orders

  • Issues allowed for jury trial.