Rodger v. C & J Contracts [2002] ScotCS 260 (13 September 2002)

Rodger v. C & J Contracts [2002] ScotCS 260 (13 September 2002)

The defenders' averments of fraud, when considered as a whole, are sufficiently specific and relevant to be remitted to probation as they are capable of yielding an inference of fraud and support the defenders' denial of the pursuer's employment status.

Citation
[2002] ScotCS 260
Parties
Pursuer: Henry Wyse Rodger; Defender: C & J Contracts Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
13 September 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Personal Injury (damages) / Procedure Roll (pleading Challenge)
Outcome
Defenders allowed a proof of their averments; pursuer's challenge rejected.
Legal Topics
Specification of Fraud Pleadings, Employer Employee Relationship, Relevancy of Averments, Employers' Liability Insurance
Civil Procedure Employment Law Insurance Law Specification of Fraud Pleadings Employer Employee Relationship Relevancy of Averments Employers' Liability Insurance

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Henry Wyse Rodger

Pursuer

C & J Contracts Limited

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil Personal Injury (damages) / Procedure Roll (pleading Challenge)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defenders' averments of fraud are sufficiently specific and relevant to be remitted to probation
  2. 2 Whether the defenders' averments, if proved, could support the denial of an employer-employee relationship

Ratio Decidendi

The defenders' averments of fraud, when considered as a whole, are sufficiently specific and relevant to be remitted to probation as they are capable of yielding an inference of fraud and support the defenders' denial of the pursuer's employment status.

Court Disposition

Defenders allowed a proof of their averments; pursuer's challenge rejected.

Orders

  • Defenders' averments of fraud to be remitted to probation.
  • Pursuer's plea on lack of specification and relevancy refused.