Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 16 MAY 2018

Useful Guidance From ASPIC In Relation To Sanction For Counsel

Brodies LLP
Brodies LLP
Contributor
Brodies LLP

Brodies LLP

Brodies LLP is a prominent UK law firm, headquartered in Scotland, that provides expert advice to...

View firm profile
Explore more from Brodies LLP

William Cullen v Scan Building Services Ltd (2018) SC EDIN 15 is a decision of Sheriff McGowan in the All Scotland Personal Injury Court (ASPIC) - it is the first employer's liability case where the court...

United KingdomLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration

William Cullen v Scan Building Services Ltd (2018) SC EDIN 15 is a decision of Sheriff McGowan in the All Scotland Personal Injury Court (ASPIC) - it is the first employer's liability case where the court has refused sanction for counsel. The decision also provides useful general guidance on the factors which will be considered by the court when determining whether or not to grant sanction for counsel.

Background to the Claim

Mr Cullen (the pursuer) was involved in a slip and trip type accident at work. Liability, contributory negligence and quantum were disputed. The action was raised for the sum of £50,000.

Test applied in determining sanction for counsel

Section 108 of the Court Reform (Scotland) Act 2014 states that the court must sanction the employment of counsel if in all the circumstances it is reasonable to do so. The court must have regard to the following factors:

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from