Strachan v Strathmore Glazing & Anor [1998] ScotCS 33 (22 October 1998)

Strachan v Strathmore Glazing & Anor [1998] ScotCS 33 (22 October 1998)

The pursuer's averments of fault regarding speed and duty of care, when read in context, are sufficiently relevant and specific to go to proof. The criticisms of lack of specificity or irrelevance are not upheld.

Citation
[1998] ScotCS 33
Parties
Pursuer: Michael Thorburn Reid Strachan; Defender: Strathmore Glazing; Defender: Another (unnamed second defender)
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
22 October 1998
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Action / Debate on Relevancy and Specification; Interlocutory Decision
Outcome
Action to proceed to proof before answer.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Duty of Care, Pleadings, Proof Before Answer
Tort Personal Injury Road Traffic Law Negligence Duty of Care Pleadings Proof Before Answer

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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Thorburn Reid Strachan

Pursuer

Strathmore Glazing

Defender

Another (unnamed second defender)

Defender

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Action / Debate on Relevancy and Specification; Interlocutory Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer's averments of fault regarding speed and duty of care are relevant and sufficiently specific to go to proof

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer's averments of fault regarding speed and duty of care, when read in context, are sufficiently relevant and specific to go to proof. The criticisms of lack of specificity or irrelevance are not upheld.

Court Disposition

Action to proceed to proof before answer.

Orders

  • Averments objected to are held sufficiently relevant and specific to go to proof.
  • Parties allowed a proof before answer of their respective averments.