Richards & Anor v Pharmacia Ltd c/o Pfizer Ltd [2017] ScotCS CSOH_77 (12 May 2017)

Richards & Anor v Pharmacia Ltd c/o Pfizer Ltd [2017] ScotCS CSOH_77 (12 May 2017)

Pursuers' pleadings are sufficiently relevant and provide fair notice for proof before answer on both statutory and common law grounds; allegations of fraud are not central to grounds of action and specification is adequate except for one vague averment excluded from probation.

Citation
[2017] ScotCS CSOH_77
Parties
Pursuer: Ronald Richards; Pursuer: John Jarvie; Defender: Pharmacia Limited c/o Pfizer Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
12 May 2017
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Action / Procedure Roll Debate
Outcome
Proof before answer allowed on pursuers' and defenders' averments; one sentence excluded from probation for lack of specification.
Legal Topics
Defective Pharmaceutical Products, Statutory Duty Under Consumer Protection Act 1987, Causation in Medical Injury, Pleading Requirements for Fraud
Product Liability Personal Injury Consumer Protection Defective Pharmaceutical Products Statutory Duty Under Consumer Protection Act 1987 Causation in Medical Injury Pleading Requirements for Fraud

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ronald Richards

Pursuer

John Jarvie

Pursuer

Pharmacia Limited c/o Pfizer Limited

Defender

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Action / Procedure Roll Debate

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Celebrex was a defective product under Consumer Protection Act 1987
  2. 2 Whether defenders breached common law duties of care
  3. 3 Whether pursuers' pleadings meet specification requirements for allegations of fraud

Ratio Decidendi

Pursuers' pleadings are sufficiently relevant and provide fair notice for proof before answer on both statutory and common law grounds; allegations of fraud are not central to grounds of action and specification is adequate except for one vague averment excluded from probation.

Court Disposition

Proof before answer allowed on pursuers' and defenders' averments; one sentence excluded from probation for lack of specification.

Orders

  • Proof before answer granted.
  • First plea in law for defenders reserved.