Category: Scotland

Vibert v Zenith Insurance and Another: SCS 7 Jul 2016

The pursuer had suffered serious injuries in a road traffic accident. She was a passenger in a car driven by her partner, who died in the accident. It was said that they had been undertaken by another car. The insurers said that the twocars had been racing each other.

Lord Turnbull
[2016] ScotCS CSOH – 96
Bailii

Scotland, Personal Injury, Negligence

Updated: 19 January 2022; Ref: scu.567045

Watson v Greater Glasgow Health Board: SCS 5 Jul 2016

Outer House, Court of Session -‘This opinion, following a procedure roll discussion, considers the question whether the pursuer’s averments in her action for damages for personal injuries arising out of the death of her husband, should be dismissed as irrelevant for lack of specification.

[2016] ScotCS CSOH – 93
Bailii

Scotland

Updated: 19 January 2022; Ref: scu.566808

Khosrowpour v Mackay: SCS 1 Jul 2016

Extra Division, Inner House – ‘Hamid Khosrowpour (the pursuer) seeks damages from the estate of his late mother-in-law (the deceased) on the basis that she failed to honour an agreement that she would leave her house to him in her will. The pursuer offers to prove that in 1989 she agreed to do this in return for payment of andpound;8,000, which allowed her to exercise her right to purchase the house then tenanted by her from the local authority; andpound;800 being referable to legal costs, etc. ‘

Lord Malcolm
[2016] ScotCS CSIH – 50
Bailii

Scotland, Land, Trusts

Updated: 19 January 2022; Ref: scu.566806

Brown and Another v Stonegale Ltd and Another: SC 22 Jun 2016

The insolvent companies administrators sought reduction of alienations by the companies before entering into administration. It was said that their banker lenders had been misled as to the values of secured properties, agreeing to their release leading to losses, and their sale.
Held: The appeals failed: ‘The gratuitous nature of the alienations was clearly explained by the Lord Ordinary . . Before the various conveyances, the companies owned five properties. A bargain was in place for the sale of one of those properties, 278 Glasgow Road, for the sum of andpound;2.4m. After the sale was completed, andpound;2.4m was transferred to the bank in reduction of borrowings, and the companies retained the other four properties, valued at andpound;1.525m. Those properties were then conveyed to the appellants. The companies received nothing whatsoever in return. There was no reciprocity between those disposals and the earlier payment made to the bank. The purpose and effect of those transactions was to divert assets away from the companies’ creditors: exactly what section 242 is intended to prevent. That they were gratuitous alienations is plain and obvious.’

Lord Neuberger, President, Lord Sumption, Lord Reed, Lord Carnwath, Lord Hodge
[2016] UKSC 30
Bailii, Bailii Summary
Insolvency Act 1986 242
Scotland
Citing:
Appeal from – Brown and Another (Joint Administrators of Oceancrown Ltd) v Stonegale Ltd SCS 11-Dec-2013
Administrators sought to have set aside transactions made before the companies went into administration.
Held: Rejecting the director’s arguments, the Lord Ordinary said: ‘No one paid anything for 110, 210, 260 Glasgow Road and 64 Roslea . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insolvency

Updated: 18 January 2022; Ref: scu.565828

McBride v Scottish Police Authority (Scotland): SC 15 Jun 2016

The court was asked whether the employment tribunal had been correct, after finding that the appellant had been unfairly dismissed, to order her reinstatement. She had worked as a fingerprint officer, but her reinstatement was to be on terms that she should not attend court in her role. The court was now asked whether an order could be made on a different contractual basis.
Held: The appeal was allowed. There was a dichotomy when considering between an order for reengagement and an order for reinstatement. The ET has no power to order reinstatement in terms which alter the contractual terms of the complainant’s employment. In part, the question was a practical one. M had for several years in fact not been asked to attend court to give evidence, and that was the status quo. The order was in effect a recognition of a practical limitation which was already in place.

Lady Hale, Deputy President, Lord Clarke, Lord Wilson, Lord Reed, Lord Hodge
[2016] ICR 788, [2016] IRLR 63, [2016] UKSC 27, [2016] WLR(D) 308, 2016 GWD 19-339, UKSC 2014/0235
Bailii, WLRD, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary
Employment Rights Act 1996 112 116
Scotland
Citing:
At Inner House – McBride v Employment Appeal Tribunal SCS 25-Jan-2013
The appellant had been employed by the Police as a fingerprint officer. She was unfairly dismissed after a wrongful accusation. The tribunal ordered that she be reinstated, but on terms which would not result in her attending court as an expert . .
Cited – British Airways Plc v Valencia EAT 26-Jun-2014
EAT Unfair Dismissal : Reinstatement or Re-Engagement – Claimant a cabin crew member held to have been unfairly dismissed but to have contributed to a high degree to his dismissal (80%) and Tribunal held that a . .
Cited – Timex Corporation v Thomson EAT 1981
The tribunal had found the employee claimant to have been unfairly dismissed when the employer dismissed for redundancy or reorganisation. Although there was a redundancy situation they were not satisfied that the employee was dismissed for that . .
Cited – Port of London Authority v Payne and Others CA 3-Nov-1993
The practicality of re-instatement of an employee is to be decided on the evidence immediately before the tribunal. . .
Cited – Coleman v S and W Baldwin 1977
Whether unilateral changes to an employment contract amounted to a constructive dismissal. . .
Cited – Pedersen v Camden London Borough Council CA 1981
The test for determining whether there has been a repudiatory breach of contract sufficient to entitle the employee to leave and claim constructive dismissal is an objective one to be determined by the Tribunal itself. The Employment Appeal Tribunal . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.565401

Jefford v Gee: CA 4 Mar 1970

The courts of Scotland followed the civil law in the award of interest on damages. The court gave examples of the way in which they apply the ex mora rule when calculating the interest payable in a judgment. If money was wrongfully withheld, then the courts had power to award interest during the period of delay between the time the money was legally and ascertainably due and the time when the court ordered that it should be paid.
The court established the principles for awarding interest on damages awards in personal injuries cases: ‘Therefore if I could see my way to do so, I should certainly be disposed to give the appellants, or anybody in a similar position, interest upon the amount withheld from the time of action brought at all events.’ and ‘It should only be awarded to a plaintiff for being kept out of money which ought to have been paid to him’ and ‘We applied this principle very recently in Harbutt’s ‘Plasticine’ Ltd . . . where we all agreed in saying: ‘the basis of an award of interest is that the defendant has kept the plaintiff out of his money; and the defendant has had the use of it himself. So he ought to compensate the plaintiff accordingly’.’ The court used published short term interest rates. The half rate approach was used because interest was not large enough to warrant minute attention to detail. The half rate was a reasonable approximation. In relation to benefits, the plaintiff (whilst he received no interest on the moiety for which he gave credit against damages) did not have to give credit in the interest calculation in respect of his windfall receipt of the other moiety of benefits paid.

Lord Denning MR
[1970] 2 QB 130, [1970] EWCA Civ 8, [1970] 1 All ER 1202, [1970] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 107, [1970] 2 WLR 702
Bailii
Scotland
Citing:
Cited – London, Chatham and Dover Railway Co v South Eastern Railway Co HL 1893
The Lord Chancellor was considering the position of a creditor whose debtor refused to exchange accounts as agreed, thus preventing the creditor from quantifying the debt.
Held: The House declined to alter the rule in Page -v- Newman.
Cited by:
Cited – Lesotho Highlands Development Authority v Impregilo Spa and others CA 31-Jul-2003
The parties went to arbitration to resolve disputes in a construction contract. The award appeared to have been made for payment in currencies different from those set out in the contract. The question was asked as to whether the award of interest . .
Cited – Spittle v Bunney CA 1988
The plaintiff made a claim in damages for the loss of her mother’s services.
Held: In assessing a FAA claim on behalf of a child a judge, directing himself as he would a jury, was, in valuing the mothers services to take into account the . .
Cited – Eagle (By Her Litigation Friend) v Chambers CA 29-Jul-2004
The claimant had been severely injured, and a substantial damages award made. Cross appeals were heard as to the several elements awarded. The claimant sought as part of her award of damages for personal injuries the fees she would have to pay to . .
Cited – Adcock v Co-Operative Insurance Society Ltd CA 26-Apr-2000
The claimant claimed under his fire insurance with the defendants. He sought damages for their delay in processing the claim.
Held: The power to award interest on damages is discretionary. The judge had refused to allow interest, at a rate . .
Cited – Knight v Axa Assurances QBD 24-Jul-2009
The claimant was injured in a car accident in France. The defendant insurer said that the quantification of damages was to be according to French law and the calculation of interest also. The claimant said that English law applied.
Held: The . .
Cited – Dexter v Courtaulds Ltd CA 1984
The plaintiff had been injured at work, and awarded damages, including for loss of wages. The parties disputed the method of calculation of interest on the damages.
Held: To avoid the laborious detailed calaculations of interest from day to . .
Cited – Cookson v Knowles CA 1977
Lord Denning MR said: ‘In Jefford v Gee . . we said that, in personal injury cases, when a lump sum is awarded for pain and suffering and loss of amenities, interest should run ‘ from the date of service of the ‘writ to the date of trial’. At that . .
Cited – Pickett v British Rail Engineering HL 2-Nov-1978
Lost Earnings claim Continues after Death
The claimant, suffering from mesothelioma, had claimed against his employers and won, but his claim for loss of earnings consequent upon his anticipated premature death was not allowed. He began an appeal, but then died. His personal representatives . .
Cited – Revenue and Customs v Joint Administrators of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) SC 13-Mar-2019
The Court was asked whether interest payable under rule 14.23(7) of the Insolvency Rules 2016 is ‘yearly interest’ within the meaning of section 874 of the Income Tax Act 2007. If so, the administrators must deduct income tax before paying interest . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Damages, Scotland, Personal Injury

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.185179