TEXT

note 25  add: “The longest jury trial in recent times was a four week defamation action, Sheridan v News International, App.III, 3 [5].

5.05 

note 8  add at end: “Neither inconvenience (even if described as “solatium”) as a recoverable head of breach of contract, or harassment in an action for damages brought under the provisions of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, constitute a personal injury – Mack v Glasgow City Council,  [2006] CSIH 18 (inconvenience), G v S, [2006] CSOH 88 (harassment).”

note 29  add “For a recent example see Moore v Scottish Daily Record & Sunday Mail Ltd., [2007] CSOH 24

note 29  add: “Baird v Cowie, [2006] CSOH 168, Strang v Churchill Insurance Co Ltd, [2006] CSOH 125

6.12

note 62  add at end: “ A full account of this case appears at (2006) 67 Rep. L. B. 5.”

6.10

note 81  add at end: “ In Toner v McLeod, [2006] CSOH 88, counter-issues in respect of contributory negligence were allowed in a medical negligence case.”

note 74  after “SLT 1139” add “see also [2006] CSOH 117 where these averments were added back in to the record for the purpose of the proof; for the result of the proof see J.M. v Fife Council, [2007] CSOH 18.

6.21 

note 117 add at end: “For comment on this case see (2006) 68 Civ. Pr. Bul. 5.”

add new footnote 138a. “Baird v Cowie, [2006] CSOH 168.”

note 147 add  “ Logie v Fife Council, [2006] CSOH 127 and Anderson v Robert Kelman (t/a Ailsa Wood Products), [2006] CSOH 135.

note 157  add “Strang v Churchill Insurance Co Ltd, [2006] CSOH 175.”

6.33

note 187 add at end: “ The pursuer was allowed to amend and issues were then allowed – see Toner v McLeod, [2006] CSOH 88; a counter-issue in respect of contributory negligence was also allowed.”

add at end of first sentence “ as are questions as to whether or not the pursuer might benefit from certain treatment, whether it would be funded privately and whether she would require to move home so as to be near to a treatment centre. 190a.

add new note 189 add “Anderson v Robert Kelman (t/a Ailsa Wood Products), [2006] CSOH 135

6.39

note 215 add after “at para [15]” the following:  - for the outcome of the preliminary proof between the defenders and third party in relation to the construction of the indemnity clause see Slessor v Vetco Gray Ltd, [2006] CSOH 104.”

note 240 add “See also Strang v Churchill Insurance Co Ltd, [2006] CSOH 175

7.10

note 34  add at end. “and the outer house decision in Weir v Robertsn Group (Construction) Ltd., [2006] CSOH 107. The jury award in “Gillies v Lynch, App. III, 1, [7] represents the largest ever  s.1(4) award, albeit on an unusual set of facts.”

7.14

note 44  add at end: “ A good example of this is found in McCormick v Scottish Daily Record & Sunday Mail Ltd, App. III, 3 [4] – for a full account of this case see (2006) 68 Rep. L. B. 4 and (2006) 69 Rep. L. B. 3

note 47 add “ Sheridan  News International, Appx III, 3 [5] may be another.

9.02

note 4  add at end: “ If there are any outstanding matters relating to relevancy then a proof under the Chapter 43 procedure is to be equated to a proof before answer in ordinary actions – Anderson v Christian Salveson plc, [2006] CSOH 101.”

9.03

note 7 add at end: “ and in the Personal Injuries User Group Newsletter 3, June 2006.

note 6  add “ A party who deleted averments in order (unsuccessfully) to obtain issues may be allowed to amend and bring back those deleted averments for the purpose of a proof: Morris v  Fife Council, [2006] CSOH 117  

14.01

Add at end of para. “ Any subsequent re-estimate of the length of the trial diet should be intimated to the Keeper by way of letter, e-mail or fax, notwithstanding the terms of the pre-trial meeting. 6a.” Add note:  “ 6a.  Personal Injuries User Group Newsletter 3, June 2006.”

14.05

note 26  add at end: “ For the text of the document “Information for Jurors at the Court of Session” see  www.scotcourts.gov.uk/courtusers/jurors/docs/info_jurors_civil.pdf ”

15.18

note 42  add at end:  “ See also Adam v HM Advocate, [2006] HCJA 41.

note 29  add “In Sheridan v News International, Lord Turnbull, 4 August 2006*, a male juror was excused because of a previous holiday commitment. The trial ran for four weeks with a reduced jury of eleven.”

22.18

note 53  add at end: “ In relation to post-trial tenders relating to expenses see McFarlane v Scottish Borders Council, [2006] CSOH 96.”

note 54  add “Brackencroft Ltd v Silves Marine Ltd, [2006] CSOH 2.

add at end of paragraph: “The failure to reclaim against the allowance of issues on the grounds of relevancy may prevent a party from subsequently challenging a jury verdict on the basis that a head of claim was not relevant. 13a.

add “A further example was in a case where the presiding judge refused to withdraw a case from the jury after evidence was led that the pursuer was suffering from abnormal or pathological grief and it was said by the defenders that this was not a relevant head of claim. The matter had already been dealt with at two procedure rolls and issues had been allowed and accordingly it was held that the judge had been right to refuse the motion, especially when no reclaiming motion had been marked against either of those interlocutors. 12a.

[5] Sheridan v News International
Lord Turnbull and jury, 4 August 2006
The pursuer, a prominent socialist politician and member of the Scottish parliament, was accused in a newspaper article of having committed adultery, having attended at a “swingers’ club”, and (as a tee-totaller) having consumed champagne. The defenders pled veritas and that the story was “substantially true.” The jury found for the pursuer.
Award: £200,000