MARGARET ANNE GALLAGHER & Ors AGAINST S.C. CHEADLE HUME LTD & Ors [2014] ScotCS CSOH_103 (24 June 2014)
Citation: MARGARET ANNE GALLAGHER & Ors AGAINST S.C. CHEADLE HUME LTD & Ors [2014] ScotCS CSOH_103 (24 June 2014)
Rule of thumb: In loss of society cases does the Court have free discretion to decide what the damages should be? No, the damages award must be in the correct category once the facts related to the closeness of the relationship are established – if the wrong category of damages for the facts of the case is applied then this can be appealed.
Judgment:
'[8] The case of Hamilton to which Lord Drummond Young referred came before five judges on motions in two separate cases for a new trial on the ground that the awards of damages under section 1(4) of the 1976 Act were excessive. The decision was issued on 8 June 2012. The deceased in the first action, Hamilton v Ferguson Transport (Spean Bridge) Ltd was a 50 year old woman who was killed in a road traffic accident. Her widower was aged 67 and her daughter 17. The jury awarded the widower £80,000 (£50,000 attributable to the past) and the daughter £120,000 (£50,000 attributable to the past) under section 1(4) of the 1976 Act. There was no motion for a new trial in respect of the award made to the widower as dealings in relation to a tender had affected that, but there was such a motion in respect of the award of £120,000 made to the daughter. The deceased in the second action, Thomson v Dennis Thomson Builders Ltd, was aged 26 when he was killed on 10 March 2007 in the course of his employment. Only the claim by the deceased’s father, who was aged 57 at the date of the deceased’s death, was not settled. On 2 February 2011 the jury awarded him £90,000 (£50,000 attributable to the past). The motions for new trials were allowed by the court on the ground that the awards made by the juries were excessive, the test of excess of damages being whether no reasonable jury properly directed could have assessed damages at the sum in question. At p 519, para [72] Lord President Hamilton expressed the view that “the recent judicial decisions of Bellingham v Todd and Wolff v John Moulds (Kilmarnock) Ltd ... markedly undervalue the section 1(4) claims”, Lord Uist.
Warning: This is not professional legal advice. This is not professional legal education advice. Please obtain professional guidance before embarking on any legal course of action. This is just an interpretation of a Judgment by persons of legal insight & varying levels of legal specialism, experience & expertise. Please read the Judgment yourself and form your own interpretation of it with professional assistance.