(1) McCORMICK v SCOTTISH DAILY RECORD & SUNDAY MAIL LTD

(Lord Menzies and Jury, 19 January 2006)

The pursuer was a solicitor who had acted on behalf of a religious order implicated in  historical child abuse at a residential school in the 1960s and 1970s. he raised an action in respect of an article published in a newspaper following on the conviction of three men for sexual and physical abuse at the school. The jury rejected the newspaper’s defence of fair comment and accepted that the article had defamed the solicitor by representing:

• (a) that he had engaged in or was implicating in a “cover-up”
• (b) that he had smeared witnesses who gave evidence at the criminal trial;
• (c) that he had engaged in or was implicated in the said “cover-up” and smeared the witnesses because he was the son of a former governor of the school; and
• (d) that he, in his capacity as a solicitor, had acted in a discreditable and dishonourable manner.

Defamation award: £45,000 (all to past)

Comment: A good example of a defamation action which potentially affected the reputation of a professional person. The sum awarded was the sum sued for (after amendment). For further detailed comment on this case see (2006) 68 Rep. L. B. 4 and (2006) 69 Rep. L. B. 3
 

(2) GILLIES v LYNCH

(Lady Clark of Calton and Jury, 24 March 2006)

Female, 24, killed with boyfriend in road traffic accident in December 1995. Deceased’s mother was single parent who kept in daily contact with her and had long history of mental health and physical problems including recurrent depression; unusual degree of emotional dependence on deceased. Psychiatrist described “nightmare scenario” of mother having been informed of death by deceased at 11 pm and of having to identify body in mortuary. Mother now suffering pathological grief reaction by reason of circumstances, nature of relationship and prior vulnerability meaning that, in effect, she was stuck in a second stage grief reaction (an inability to function normally because of intrusive thoughts, etc.) and could not accept death of daughter and unlikely to move on to acceptance stage; psychiatrist stating that average period for second stage reaction usually only 6-12 months. Prognosis (after 10 yrs) poor, particularly in view of mental health problems. Liability admitted and funeal expenses agreed at £3,406.

Section 1(4) award to mother £80,000 (£50,000 to past).

Comment: The largest ever s.1(4) award, albeit in a case of a somewhat unusual and extreme grief reaction. For debates leading to granting of issues see 2002 SLT 1420 and 2004 GWD 35-710. A motion for a new trial on the grounds of (a) excess of damages and (b) misdirection by the presiding judge is due to be heard in February 2007.
 

(3) CRAIG v WHITBREAD plc

(Lord Turnbull and Jury, 27 April 2006)

Male service engineer, 31 at date of accident, 36 at trial. Suffered severe gash to left non-dominant hand, severing ulnar nerve. Wound failed to heal, causing marked functional deficit and significant continuing pain to date. Psychological sequelae after accident triggered adjustment disorder with anxiety and depression. Agreed deduction for contributory negligence 15%. Past wage loss £9,500, future loss of employability £45,000, services £2,000.

Solatium: £16,000 (£8,000 to past)

Comment: A realistic and unsurprising jury award in a personal injury action.
 

Lord Turnbull and jury, 4 August 2006