Hogan v Highland Regional Council
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 11 February 1994 |
| Docket Number | No 1 |
| Date | 11 February 1994 |
| Court | Court of Session (Inner House - Second Division) |
Second Division
PracticeReparationOpinion of Lord OrdinaryLord Ordinary failing to record all submissions made to him and to express views upon those submissionsWhether Lord Ordinary erredDuty of Lord Ordinary
The pursuer sustained injuries in respect of a cycling accident. He averred that he had skidded on sand and was subsequently thrown from his bicycle when it went into a rut in the road. The Lord Ordinary (Lord Morton of Shuna) assoilzied the defenders, holding that the pursuer's evidence was unsupported by that of other witnesses. The pursuer reclaimed. The Lord Ordinary failed to deal with any question of apportionment of liability or with contributory negligence upon which full arguments had been presented to him at proof, nor did he record any of the submissions made or indicate how he would have determined those issues had it been necessary for him to do so.
Held that the Lord Ordinary had erred in assoilzieing the defenders.
Observations (per the Lord Justice-Clerk (Ross)) (1) that the Lord Ordinary should have recorded all submissions made before him and expressed his views upon them even when such conclusions were not necessary for him to decide the case; (2) that those matters all raised issues of fact and the Lord Ordinary, who had heard the witnesses, should have expressed a view upon those matters and a Lord Ordinary should always express a conclusion on all issues regarding the facts which have been argued before him and which were capable of being raised in a reclaiming motion for unless he did that, an appeal court might find itself in the position of having to arrive at conclusions upon the facts without the benefit of the views of the Lord Ordinary who heard the evidence.
Morrow v Enterprise Sheet Metalworks (Aberdeen) LtdSC1986 SC 96followed.
John Hogan brought an action of reparation for damages against (First) Highland Regional Council and (Second) Sportsworks Ltd in respect of personal injuries sustained by him due to an accident at roadworks being undertaken by the first-named defenders and others. The pursuer had been cycling down a street on a hill when, he averred, he skidded on sand and was subsequently thrown from his bicycle when it went into a rut in the road.
The cause came to proof before answer before the Lord Ordinary (Lord Morton of Shuna) who, at advising, assoilzied the defenders, having taken the view that the pursuer's evidence had been unsupported by that of other...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Colin Mather Against Easyjet Airline Company Limited And Another
...Ordinary’s views on that case rather than deciding it as if this court were sitting at first instan ce (Hogan v Highland Regional Council 1995 SC 1, LJC (Ross), delivering the opinion of the court, at 2). [68] The reports and testimony of Dr Schaaff and Mr Hohagen make it clear that the app......
-
Appeal From The Sheriff Appeal Court In The Petition Of The City Of Edinburgh Council Against Gd
...case purely on the threshold issue, the sheriff had, as he ought have, gone on to answer the welfare question (see Hogan v Highland Council 1995 SC 1, LJC (Ross) at 2). His observation, that a decision to refuse the application on the threshold test avoids the necessity of making findings o......
-
City of Edinburgh Council v GD
...145 NLJ 1887; (1996) 140 SJLB 24 and [1995] 1 FLR 643; [1995] 2 FCR 384; [1995] Fam Law 401; 159 JPN 338 Hogan v Highland Regional Council 1995 SC 1; 1995 SLT 466 J (Children) (Care Proceedings: Threshold Criteria) (Re) [2013] UKSC 9; [2013] 1 AC 680; [2013] 2 WLR 649; [2013] 3 All ER 1; [2......
-
Abdelbaset Al Megrahi V. Her Majesty's Advocate
...16 EHRR 219 Hauschildt v Denmark Series A No 154 (1989); 12 EHRR 266 Heywood v BUNK 1994 SCCR 554 Hogan v Highland Regional CouncilSC 1995 SC 1 McPhelim v HM AdvocateSC1996 JC 203 Ranaldi v City of Edinburgh Council 2000 SLT 297 The Court refused the prayer of the petition. 1 The relevant s......