Smith v Advocate General For Scotland [2001] ScotCS 13 (19 January 2001)
The pursuer's pleadings were insufficiently specific and failed to establish that psychiatric injury to the pursuer was foreseeable by the defender or Mr Fotheringham. The pleadings did not provide fair notice of a relevant case, and thus the action was dismissed without proof.
- Citation
- [2001] ScotCS 13
- Parties
- Pursuer: Robin Fairlie Smith; Defender: The Rt Hon Lynda Clark, Q.C., M.P., Advocate General for Scotland
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judgment Date
- 19 January 2001
- Procedural Posture
- Civil / Procedure Roll (pleading Stage)
- Outcome
- action dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Psychiatric Injury, Vicarious Liability, Employer's Duty of Care, Workplace Bullying, Pleading Sufficiency
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Robin Fairlie Smith
Pursuer
The Rt Hon Lynda Clark, Q.C., M.P., Advocate General for Scotland
Defender
Procedural Posture
Civil / Procedure Roll (pleading Stage)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the pursuer's pleadings disclose a relevant case of foreseeable psychiatric injury caused by workplace conduct
- 2 Whether the defender can be held vicariously liable for the alleged acts of Mr Fotheringham
- 3 Whether the pleadings provide sufficient notice and specificity to entitle the pursuer to proof
Ratio Decidendi
The pursuer's pleadings were insufficiently specific and failed to establish that psychiatric injury to the pursuer was foreseeable by the defender or Mr Fotheringham. The pleadings did not provide fair notice of a relevant case, and thus the action was dismissed without proof.
Court Disposition
action dismissed
Orders
- Sustained the defender's first plea-in-law and dismissed the action.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment