RECLAIMING MOTION BY MARGUERITE HENDERSON AGAINST BENARTY MEDICAL PRACTICE [2023] ScotCS CSIH_1 (10 January 2023)

RECLAIMING MOTION BY MARGUERITE HENDERSON AGAINST BENARTY MEDICAL PRACTICE [2023] ScotCS CSIH_1 (10 January 2023)

The Lord Ordinary was entitled to prefer the evidence of the respondents' receptionist, Heather Leslie, regarding the cancellation of the appointment, and gave sound, cogent reasons for doing so. The reclaimer failed to demonstrate that the Lord Ordinary made any material error of law, critical finding without evidence, or left out relevant evidence. Minor errors in the Lord Ordinary's reasoning did not affect the outcome. The appeal is refused.

Citation
[2023] ScotCS CSIH_1
Parties
Pursuer and Reclaimer: Marguerite Henderson; Defenders and Respondents: Benarty Medical Practice
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
10 January 2023
Procedural Posture
Reclaiming Motion (appeal) / Appeal From Lord Ordinary's Decision After Proof
Outcome
Reclaiming motion refused; Lord Ordinary's decision adhered to.
Legal Topics
Standard of Proof, Assessment of Evidence, Appellate Review, Duty of Care, Receptionist Liability, Clinical Decision Making
Medical Negligence Civil Procedure Standard of Proof Assessment of Evidence Appellate Review Duty of Care Receptionist Liability Clinical Decision Making

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Marguerite Henderson

Pursuer and Reclaimer

Benarty Medical Practice

Defenders and Respondents

Procedural Posture

Reclaiming Motion (appeal) / Appeal From Lord Ordinary's Decision After Proof

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Lord Ordinary erred in preferring the evidence of the respondents' receptionist regarding the cancellation of a medical appointment
  2. 2 Whether the cancellation of the appointment was at the reclaimer's request or due to staff error/negligence
  3. 3 Whether the Lord Ordinary failed to consider relevant evidence or made findings unsupported by evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The Lord Ordinary was entitled to prefer the evidence of the respondents' receptionist, Heather Leslie, regarding the cancellation of the appointment, and gave sound, cogent reasons for doing so. The reclaimer failed to demonstrate that the Lord Ordinary made any material error of law, critical finding without evidence, or left out relevant evidence. Minor errors in the Lord Ordinary's reasoning did not affect the outcome. The appeal is refused.

Court Disposition

Reclaiming motion refused; Lord Ordinary's decision adhered to.

Orders

  • Refusal of the reclaiming motion (appeal)
  • Adherence to the Lord Ordinary's interlocutors of 5 April 2022