SCOTTISH WATER v. DUNNE BUILDING AND CIVIL ENGINEERING LTD [2012] ScotSC 84 (31 July 2012)

SCOTTISH WATER v. DUNNE BUILDING AND CIVIL ENGINEERING LTD [2012] ScotSC 84 (31 July 2012)

The presence of the defender's monobloc in the sewer causing the blockage, accepted by the sheriff, constituted prima facie evidence of negligence. The sheriff erred in law by requiring the pursuers to exclude all other possibilities. The correct legal test is whether the facts proved are more consistent with negligence than lack of fault. The pursuers discharged the burden of proof; the appeal is allowed.

Citation
[2012] ScotSC 84
Parties
Pursuer and Appellant: Scottish Water; Defender and Respondent: Dunne Building and Civil Engineering Ltd
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
31 July 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Interlocutor After Proof
Outcome
appeal allowed quoad the merits; appeal refused on certification of counsel for proof; decree granted for pursuers
Legal Topics
Burden of Proof, Inference of Negligence, Standard of Proof, Reparation, Civil Liability
Tort Negligence Burden of Proof Inference of Negligence Standard of Proof Reparation Civil 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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Scottish Water

Pursuer and Appellant

Dunne Building and Civil Engineering Ltd

Defender and Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Interlocutor After Proof

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the presence of the defender's monobloc in the sewer causing blockage is sufficient to infer negligence
  2. 2 Whether the pursuer must exclude all other possibilities to discharge the burden of proof
  3. 3 Whether the sheriff misdirected himself regarding the legal standard for proof of negligence

Ratio Decidendi

The presence of the defender's monobloc in the sewer causing the blockage, accepted by the sheriff, constituted prima facie evidence of negligence. The sheriff erred in law by requiring the pursuers to exclude all other possibilities. The correct legal test is whether the facts proved are more consistent with negligence than lack of fault. The pursuers discharged the burden of proof; the appeal is allowed.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed quoad the merits; appeal refused on certification of counsel for proof; decree granted for pursuers

Orders

  • Recall sheriff's interlocutor of 10 February 2012 except refusal of certification of counsel for proof
  • Sustain first and second pleas in law for pursuers