McGlinchey v General Motors UK (Rev 1) [2012] ScotCS CSIH_91 (04 December 2012)

McGlinchey v General Motors UK (Rev 1) [2012] ScotCS CSIH_91 (04 December 2012)

The pursuer failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that a defect in the handbrake mechanism existed at the time of supply or that such a defect caused the accident. The Lord Ordinary was entitled to reject the pursuer's expert evidence as implausible, and the mere failure of the handbrake did not suffice to establish liability under the Consumer Protection Act 1987.

Citation
[2012] ScotCS CSIH_91
Parties
Pursuer and Reclaimer: Lesley Anne McGlinchey; Defenders and Respondents: General Motors UK Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
04 December 2012
Procedural Posture
Reclaiming Motion (appeal) / Decision on Appeal From Lord Ordinary
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Defective Products, Causation, Burden of Proof, Consumer Protection Act 1987, Product Safety, Contributory Negligence
Product Liability Consumer Protection Tort Defective Products Causation Burden of Proof Consumer Protection Act 1987 Product Safety +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lesley Anne McGlinchey

Pursuer and Reclaimer

General Motors UK Limited

Defenders and Respondents

Procedural Posture

Reclaiming Motion (appeal) / Decision on Appeal From Lord Ordinary

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer proved the existence of a defect in the handbrake mechanism under the Consumer Protection Act 1987
  2. 2 Whether the alleged defect caused the accident and injury
  3. 3 Whether the defect existed at the time of supply by the manufacturer

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that a defect in the handbrake mechanism existed at the time of supply or that such a defect caused the accident. The Lord Ordinary was entitled to reject the pursuer's expert evidence as implausible, and the mere failure of the handbrake did not suffice to establish liability under the Consumer Protection Act 1987.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Reclaiming motion refused; judgment for defenders and respondents.