JAMES McGRAW AGAINST GREATER GLASGOW HEALTH BOARD [2022] ScotCS CSOH_83 (23 November 2022)

JAMES McGRAW AGAINST GREATER GLASGOW HEALTH BOARD [2022] ScotCS CSOH_83 (23 November 2022)

The pursuer's pleadings, though not expressed in standard form, sufficiently reflect the legal test for professional negligence and provide adequate specification of breach and causation. The allegations and causal link can reasonably be inferred from the averred facts and circumstances. The motion to exclude averments is refused and the case will proceed to proof before answer.

Citation
[2022] ScotCS CSOH_83
Parties
Pursuer: James McGraw; Defender: Greater Glasgow Health Board
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
23 November 2022
Procedural Posture
Medical Negligence Damages Action / Diet of Debate (pre Proof)
Outcome
Defender's motion to exclude averments refused; plea-in-law repelled; case proceeds to proof before answer.
Legal Topics
Standard of Care, Causation, Specification of Pleadings, Expert Evidence
Medical Negligence Professional Liability Personal Injury Standard of Care Causation Specification of Pleadings Expert Evidence

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James McGraw

Pursuer

Greater Glasgow Health Board

Defender

Procedural Posture

Medical Negligence Damages Action / Diet of Debate (pre Proof)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer's pleadings against the radiologist are relevant and sufficiently specified regarding breach of duty and causation
  2. 2 Whether the pleadings meet the legal test for professional negligence
  3. 3 Whether a causal link between alleged negligent reporting and loss is averred

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer's pleadings, though not expressed in standard form, sufficiently reflect the legal test for professional negligence and provide adequate specification of breach and causation. The allegations and causal link can reasonably be inferred from the averred facts and circumstances. The motion to exclude averments is refused and the case will proceed to proof before answer.

Court Disposition

Defender's motion to exclude averments refused; plea-in-law repelled; case proceeds to proof before answer.

Orders

  • Case to proceed to proof before answer on whole averments.
  • All questions of expenses reserved.