West v Castlehill LLP & Ors [2008] ScotCS CSOH_182 (22 December 2008)

West v Castlehill LLP & Ors [2008] ScotCS CSOH_182 (22 December 2008)

The defenders' pleadings do not support a relevant case against the second third party for vicarious liability or for breach of a direct or non-delegable duty of care to the pursuer. There is no sufficient averment of a contractual obligation to supply a suitable tanker. However, the defenders' averments are sufficient to allow proof before answer on the limited issue of whether the second third party breached an implied contractual obligation to take reasonable care in selecting a competent contractor, which may entitle the defenders to relief if liability to the pursuer is established.

Citation
[2008] ScotCS CSOH_182
Parties
Pursuer: Joseph Watt West; Defenders: Castlehill LLP and Others; First Third Party: Arthur Eddie; Second Third Party: United Fish Products Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
22 December 2008
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Action (damages for Personal Injury) / Procedure Roll Debate on Relevancy of Defenders' Case Against Second Third Party
Outcome
Proof before answer allowed on limited issue; otherwise defenders' case against second third party refused probation.
Legal Topics
Vicarious Liability, Non Delegable Duty, Selection of Competent Contractor, Implied Contractual Terms, Personal Injury, Workplace Safety, Relief and Contribution Between Defenders and Third Parties
Tort/delict Contract Employment Health and Safety Vicarious Liability Non Delegable Duty Selection of Competent Contractor Implied Contractual Terms +3 more

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 30 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph Watt West

Pursuer

Castlehill LLP and Others

Defenders

Arthur Eddie

First Third Party

United Fish Products Limited

Second Third Party

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Action (damages for Personal Injury) / Procedure Roll Debate on Relevancy of Defenders' Case Against Second Third Party

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defenders have relevant and specific averments to support a claim against the second third party for relief, contribution, apportionment or reimbursement
  2. 2 Whether the second third party owed a direct or non-delegable duty of care to the pursuer
  3. 3 Whether the second third party was contractually obliged to supply a suitable tanker or to select a competent contractor

Ratio Decidendi

The defenders' pleadings do not support a relevant case against the second third party for vicarious liability or for breach of a direct or non-delegable duty of care to the pursuer. There is no sufficient averment of a contractual obligation to supply a suitable tanker. However, the defenders' averments are sufficient to allow proof before answer on the limited issue of whether the second third party breached an implied contractual obligation to take reasonable care in selecting a competent contractor, which may entitle the defenders to relief if liability to the pursuer is established.

Court Disposition

Proof before answer allowed on limited issue; otherwise defenders' case against second third party refused probation.

Orders

  • Defenders allowed proof before answer of their case against the second third party only insofar as based on breach of implied contractual obligation to take reasonable care in selecting a competent contractor.
  • Defenders refused probation of averments relating to vicarious liability, direct or non-delegable duty, and contractual obligation to supply a suitable tanker.