Walker v. Chesapeake Hillington Ltd [2010] ScotSC 9 (22 October 2010)

The pursuer must sufficiently aver the factual basis for impecuniosity if seeking to recover car hire charges above the spot hire rate; the onus of proof lies on the pursuer, and the defenders are entitled to fair notice of the pursuer's claim.

Citation: [2010] ScotSC 9
Parties: Pursuer: Walker; Defender: Chesapeake Hillington Ltd
Jurisdiction: Scotland
Judgment Date: 22 October 2010
Procedural Posture: Personal Injuries Action / Interlocutory Hearing on Motions Prior to Proof
Outcome: Continued consideration of defenders' motion; granted pursuer's unopposed motion to assign proof diet.
Legal Topics: Credit Hire Claims, Impecuniosity, Pleadings, Burden of Proof

Personal Injury Civil Procedure Credit Hire Claims Impecuniosity Pleadings Burden of Proof

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3

Parties

Walker

Pursuer

Chesapeake Hillington Ltd

Defender

Procedural Posture

Personal Injuries Action / Interlocutory Hearing on Motions Prior to Proof

Legal Issues

1 Whether the pursuer must aver and prove impecuniosity to recover credit hire charges above spot hire rate
2 Whether the defenders are entitled to fair notice of the pursuer's financial position regarding car hire claim

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Continued consideration of defenders' motion; granted pursuer's unopposed motion to assign proof diet.

Orders

Continues consideration of defenders' motion to a further hearing to enable pursuer to obtain further information on impecuniosity.
Grants pursuer's unopposed motion to assign proof diet for 4 February 2011 at 10am.