Wylie v. Grosset & Anor [2011] ScotCS CSOH_89 (24 May 2011)

Wylie v. Grosset & Anor [2011] ScotCS CSOH_89 (24 May 2011)

The Patient Information Sheet and consent form constituted a contract between the pursuer and defenders, but the compensation clause did not impose a legally enforceable obligation to pay compensation without proof of fault. The clause referenced the ABPI guidelines, which recommend but do not guarantee payment, and the language used did not amount to a clear promise or guarantee. No enforceable obligation to pay compensation arose from the documents, and the action was irrelevant in law.

Citation
[2011] ScotCS CSOH_89
Parties
Pursuer: Morton James Wylie; First Defender: Dr Donald Grosset; Second Defender: Greater Glasgow Health Board
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
24 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Contractual Claim (clinical Trial) / Procedure Roll Discussion on Relevancy and Specification
Outcome
Action dismissed
Legal Topics
Unilateral Obligation, Clinical Trial Compensation, Interpretation of Patient Information Sheet, Enforceability of Guidelines
Contract Law Medical Law Unilateral Obligation Clinical Trial Compensation Interpretation of Patient Information Sheet Enforceability of Guidelines

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Morton James Wylie

Pursuer

Dr Donald Grosset

First Defender

Greater Glasgow Health Board

Second Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil Contractual Claim (clinical Trial) / Procedure Roll Discussion on Relevancy and Specification

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Patient Information Sheet constitutes a unilateral obligation or contract to pay compensation for injury during a clinical trial
  2. 2 Whether the defenders are contractually liable to pay compensation without proof of fault
  3. 3 Whether the pleadings are sufficiently specified regarding quantum and causation

Ratio Decidendi

The Patient Information Sheet and consent form constituted a contract between the pursuer and defenders, but the compensation clause did not impose a legally enforceable obligation to pay compensation without proof of fault. The clause referenced the ABPI guidelines, which recommend but do not guarantee payment, and the language used did not amount to a clear promise or guarantee. No enforceable obligation to pay compensation arose from the documents, and the action was irrelevant in law.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed

Orders

  • Preliminary pleas for the defenders sustained
  • Action dismissed