A AGAINST B LIMITED & Anor [2022] ScotCS CSOH_34 (27 April 2022)

A AGAINST B LIMITED & Anor [2022] ScotCS CSOH_34 (27 April 2022)

The pursuer failed to establish a relevant case that the victim belonged to a distinct or special class at risk due to the defenders' actions. The facts are analogous to Thomson v Scottish Ministers, where no duty of care was found. The defenders are not liable for the criminal acts of X, as no special relationship or proximity existed.

Citation
[2022] ScotCS CSOH_34
Parties
Pursuer: A; First Defenders: B Limited; Second Defenders: C Council
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
27 April 2022
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Negligence Action / Procedure Roll (debate)
Outcome
action dismissed
Legal Topics
Duty of Care, Negligence, Liability for Criminal Acts of Third Parties, Public Custodianship

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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A

Pursuer

B Limited

First Defenders

C Council

Second Defenders

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Negligence Action / Procedure Roll (debate)

  1. 1 Whether defenders owed a duty of care to the victim for criminal acts of X
  2. 2 Whether the victim belonged to a distinct or special class at risk
  3. 3 Whether proximity and foreseeability were established

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer failed to establish a relevant case that the victim belonged to a distinct or special class at risk due to the defenders' actions. The facts are analogous to Thomson v Scottish Ministers, where no duty of care was found. The defenders are not liable for the criminal acts of X, as no special relationship or proximity existed.

Court Disposition

action dismissed

Orders

  • Action dismissed; defenders not liable for criminal acts of X.