Rae & Ors v Scottish Power Plc & Ors [2001] ScotCS 253 (8 November 2001)

Rae & Ors v Scottish Power Plc & Ors [2001] ScotCS 253 (8 November 2001)

The first defenders did not have sufficient control over the way in which the work was carried out to be liable under the 1996 Regulations; the second defenders had sufficient averments of control to justify a proof under the 1992 Regulations.

Citation
[2001] ScotCS 253
Parties
Pursuer: Annie Rae and Others; First Defender: Scottish Power Plc; Second Defender: [Second Defender not named]; Third Party: Mitsui Babcock Energy Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
08 November 2001
Procedural Posture
Reparation (personal Injury/death) / Debate on Relevancy and Specification; Interlocutory Decision on Probation
Outcome
Case against first defenders under 1996 Regulations refused probation; proof before answer allowed against first and second defenders on remaining grounds.
Legal Topics
Workplace Safety, Employer Liability, Statutory Duties, Control of Workplace, Construction Site Accidents
Health and Safety Law Employment Law Tort (delict) Workplace Safety Employer Liability Statutory Duties Control of Workplace Construction Site Accidents

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Annie Rae and Others

Pursuer

Scottish Power Plc

First Defender

[Second Defender not named]

Second Defender

Mitsui Babcock Energy Limited

Third Party

Procedural Posture

Reparation (personal Injury/death) / Debate on Relevancy and Specification; Interlocutory Decision on Probation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first defenders had sufficient control under the 1996 Regulations to be liable
  2. 2 Whether the second defenders had sufficient control under the 1992 Regulations to be liable

Ratio Decidendi

The first defenders did not have sufficient control over the way in which the work was carried out to be liable under the 1996 Regulations; the second defenders had sufficient averments of control to justify a proof under the 1992 Regulations.

Court Disposition

Case against first defenders under 1996 Regulations refused probation; proof before answer allowed against first and second defenders on remaining grounds.

Orders

  • Refuse to remit to probation the case against the first defenders under the 1996 Regulations.
  • Allow proof before answer between the pursuer and the first and second defenders on other grounds.