Lyell v. Sun Microsystems Scotland Bv & Anor [2005] ScotCS CSOH_36 (15 March 2005)

Lyell v. Sun Microsystems Scotland Bv & Anor [2005] ScotCS CSOH_36 (15 March 2005)

The pursuer has stated a relevant case against the defenders because statutory duties under the cited regulations apply to persons who control the workplace and equipment, regardless of formal employment status; the pleadings are sufficiently clear to allow the action to proceed.

Citation
[2005] ScotCS CSOH_36
Parties
Pursuer: Lee Lyell; Defenders: Sun Microsystems Scotland BV; Third Party: Manpower PLC
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
15 March 2005
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Action / Procedure Roll; Relevancy Challenge
Outcome
Third party's motion for dismissal refused; action allowed to proceed to proof before answer.
Legal Topics
Statutory Duties of Employers, Temporary Workers, Vicarious Liability, Indemnity Agreements
Employment Law Health and Safety Law Statutory Interpretation Statutory Duties of Employers Temporary Workers Vicarious Liability Indemnity Agreements

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lee Lyell

Pursuer

Sun Microsystems Scotland BV

Defenders

Manpower PLC

Third Party

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Action / Procedure Roll; Relevancy Challenge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer has stated a relevant case against the defenders under the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 and the Electricity at Work Regulations 1989
  2. 2 Whether statutory duties apply to the person controlling the workplace and equipment, not just the general employer
  3. 3 Whether the pleadings are contradictory regarding employment status

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer has stated a relevant case against the defenders because statutory duties under the cited regulations apply to persons who control the workplace and equipment, regardless of formal employment status; the pleadings are sufficiently clear to allow the action to proceed.

Court Disposition

Third party's motion for dismissal refused; action allowed to proceed to proof before answer.

Orders

  • Action to proceed to proof before answer