Gillanders v. Arthur Bell (Scotch Tweeds) Ltd & Anor [2005] ScotCS CSOH_54 (26 April 2005)

Gillanders v. Arthur Bell (Scotch Tweeds) Ltd & Anor [2005] ScotCS CSOH_54 (26 April 2005)

The pursuer failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the accident was caused by the ladder being propped on protruding bobbins or that any breach of regulation 5 of the 1992 Regulations caused his injury. The evidence did not establish the factual circumstances necessary for liability.

Citation
[2005] ScotCS CSOH_54
Parties
Pursuer: Gilbert Gillanders; First Defender (original, Dismissed): Arthur Bell (Scotch Tweeds) Limited; Second Defender (defender): Moorbrook Textiles Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
26 April 2005
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Action / Judgment After Proof (trial)
Outcome
Action dismissed
Legal Topics
Workplace Accident, Employer's Liability, Workplace (health, Safety & Welfare) Regulations 1992, Proof of Causation, Breach of Statutory Duty
Employment Law Personal Injury Health and Safety Workplace Accident Employer's Liability Workplace (health, Safety & Welfare) Regulations 1992 Proof of Causation Breach of Statutory Duty

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gilbert Gillanders

Pursuer

Arthur Bell (Scotch Tweeds) Limited

First Defender (original, Dismissed)

Moorbrook Textiles Limited

Second Defender (defender)

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Action / Judgment After Proof (trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the pursuer sustain injury in the course of his employment at the defenders' premises?
  2. 2 Was the accident caused by a breach of regulation 5 of the Workplace (Health, Safety & Welfare) Regulations 1992?
  3. 3 Has the pursuer proved the factual circumstances of the accident and causation?

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the accident was caused by the ladder being propped on protruding bobbins or that any breach of regulation 5 of the 1992 Regulations caused his injury. The evidence did not establish the factual circumstances necessary for liability.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed

Orders

  • The pursuer's claim is dismissed.