|
|
 |
|
| |
Judge dismisses shop worker claim
A senior judge has criticised solicitors for wasting court time by bringing a claim by a Lochaber shop supervisor to the Court of Session.
Lord Hardie said on Friday that Marion McLaughlan's allegation of a back injury should have been dealt with at local level by a sheriff.
The Co-op and the 43-year-old, of Kilmallie Road, Caol, Fort William, had agreed damages of £6,300. However, Lord Hardie dismissed the case after finding the company not liable.
Mrs McLaughlan had sued the Co-op after claiming she sustained a back injury in the course of her work as a supervisor. She alleged that she suffered the injury when lifting a container of bread rolls at the store in Caol in July 2002. She denied that she had received any training or instructions about manual handling.
Lord Hardie said she admitted that her application for employment with the Co-op was "misleading" about her previous medical history.
He said: "She denied in her application form that she had any medical history of back problems whereas her medical records disclosed a well-documented history of back pain for almost 20 years."
The judge said the Co-op produced documents purporting to show she had received training and she had signed them. But she claimed that they had simply been put in front of her for a signature and she complied with the request.
In issuing his opinion, Lord Hardie criticised solicitors for bringing the case to the Court of Session and not to a sheriff court.
He said: "The case was not complex and did not raise any novel point of law.
"In short it is my view that this case was not appropriate for the determination of the Court of Session and certainly did not merit the allocation of the scarce judicial resources available to that court.
"Before raising actions in this court, solicitors and counsel should consider whether the case is suitable for the determination of the Supreme Court.
"In deciding that matter their primary duty is to the court. They should not be influenced by the personal convenience of solicitors and counsel.
"To do so is irresponsible and operates to the prejudice of more significant cases."
Lord Hardie said personal injury cases heard at the Court of Session include those who have suffered catastrophic injuries and claims by widows and dependents in asbestos cases.
He added: "Personal injury claims with little monetary value that do not raise novel or important points of law are more appropriate to the sheriff court".
The court was told that the case had been funded by a trade union.
Source: BBC |
|
|
