Bennett v Coatbridge Health Centre & Ors [2011] ScotCS CSOH_9 (21 January 2011)

Bennett v Coatbridge Health Centre & Ors [2011] ScotCS CSOH_9 (21 January 2011)

The pursuer's primary case—that Dr Regan may have owed a duty to refer him to an ophthalmologist in December 1999—raises issues suitable for inquiry and is not bound to fail at this stage. However, the secondary case regarding regular review and advice lacks adequate specification and is excluded from probation.

Citation
[2011] ScotCS CSOH_9
Parties
Pursuer: Kevin Bennett (A. P.); Defenders: Coatbridge Health Centre & Others
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
21 January 2011
Procedural Posture
Action for Damages / Procedure Roll Hearing (debate on Relevancy and Specification)
Outcome
Partial exclusion from probation; proof before answer allowed on primary case
Legal Topics
Duty of Care, Negligence, Medical Guidelines, Causation
Medical Negligence Tort Duty of Care Negligence Medical Guidelines Causation

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kevin Bennett (A. P.)

Pursuer

Coatbridge Health Centre & Others

Defenders

Procedural Posture

Action for Damages / Procedure Roll Hearing (debate on Relevancy and Specification)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Dr Regan owed a duty to refer the pursuer to an ophthalmologist in December 1999
  2. 2 Whether the defenders owed a duty to regularly review the pursuer's vision and advise him of the need for regular review
  3. 3 Adequacy of specification regarding medical guidelines and causation

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer's primary case—that Dr Regan may have owed a duty to refer him to an ophthalmologist in December 1999—raises issues suitable for inquiry and is not bound to fail at this stage. However, the secondary case regarding regular review and advice lacks adequate specification and is excluded from probation.

Court Disposition

Partial exclusion from probation; proof before answer allowed on primary case

Orders

  • Exclusion from probation of averments relating to regular review and advice duties
  • Proof before answer allowed on referral case