Morris (AP) v Fife Council [2006] ScotCS CSOH_117 (28 July 2006)

Morris (AP) v Fife Council [2006] ScotCS CSOH_117 (28 July 2006)

It is not incompetent for a party to reinsert averments previously deleted by amendment, provided there has been no judicial determination on their relevancy. The court should exercise its discretion to allow such amendment if it is in the interests of justice and does not cause material prejudice to the other party. In this case, the amendment was allowed as the defenders were not misled, would not suffer material prejudice, and the claim for psychiatric injury was implicit in the nature of the alleged abuse.

Citation
[2006] ScotCS CSOH_117
Parties
Pursuer: James Morris (AP); Defender: Fife Council
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
28 July 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Action for Damages / Motion to Amend Pleadings Prior to Proof Before Answer
Outcome
Minute of amendment allowed (excluding paragraphs 2(b) and 3); defenders to lodge answers within 14 days.
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Discretion of the Court, Psychiatric Injury, Sexual and Physical Abuse, Vicarious Liability
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Tort Law Amendment of Pleadings Discretion of the Court Psychiatric Injury Sexual and Physical Abuse Vicarious Liability

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

Parties

James Morris (AP)

Pursuer

Fife Council

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil Action for Damages / Motion to Amend Pleadings Prior to Proof Before Answer

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer should be allowed to amend pleadings to reinsert averments of psychiatric injury previously deleted in an attempt to secure a jury trial.
  2. 2 Whether such amendment is competent and whether the court should exercise its discretion to allow it.

Ratio Decidendi

It is not incompetent for a party to reinsert averments previously deleted by amendment, provided there has been no judicial determination on their relevancy. The court should exercise its discretion to allow such amendment if it is in the interests of justice and does not cause material prejudice to the other party. In this case, the amendment was allowed as the defenders were not misled, would not suffer material prejudice, and the claim for psychiatric injury was implicit in the nature of the alleged abuse.

Court Disposition

Minute of amendment allowed (excluding paragraphs 2(b) and 3); defenders to lodge answers within 14 days.

Orders

  • Minute of amendment no 26 of process received under deletion of paragraphs 2(b) and 3.
  • Defenders to lodge answers, if so advised, within 14 days.