BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Scottish Court of Session Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Bratton & Ors v Lithgows Ltd & Anor [2001] ScotCS 165 (27 June 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/2001/165.html Cite as: [2001] ScotCS 165 |
||
[New search] [Help]
|
OUTER HOUSE, COURT OF SESSION |
|
|
|
OPINION OF LORD CARLOWAY in the cause MARY WILLIAMS BRATTON and OTHERS Pursuers; against LITHGOWS LTD and ANOTHER Defenders:
________________ |
Pursuers: F.T. Maguire, T.G. Marshall (Solicitor Advocates of Thompsons)
Defenders: Bowen; Biggart Baillie
27 June 2001
[1] I refer to my Opinion of today's date in Gilbride v Blythswood Shipbuilding Co., the motion and submissions in which were heard at the same time as in this case. This case, like that of Gilbride is one raised by relatives of a deceased former employee of the defenders who contracted mesothelioma. The death was on 25th July 1997. The action was raised in November 1999 and the record closed on 10th May 2000. A proof before answer was agreed and thereafter fixed for 30th January 2001. Because of liquidation proceedings in respect of the defenders' insurers, that diet was discharged and another diet fixed for 3rd July 2001.
[2] The pleadings in this case are very similar to those in Gilbride, with the defence on the merits consisting of general denials and being little more than skeletal. On about 10th May 2001, the defenders intimated a Minute of Amendment in substantially, but not identical, terms as that in Gilbride. This was answered in a similar way also.
[3] The submissions in this case were the same as those in Gilbride and it was not suggested that the result should differ between the two cases since the issues were basically identical. Although there are variations in the timings of the case and Minute and some differences in the proposed changes to the pleadings, for the same reasons which I have given in the Opinion in Gilbride, I will allow the record to be amended in terms of the Minute of Amendment and Answers as adjusted and discharge the diet of proof.
