Summer 2016 Scots Law in Practice

Welcome to the Summer edition of Scots Law In Practice. The first three cases contain a common thread - the pursuer in each had a valid claim on the face of things, but in each one, faced legal difficulties in obtaining a remedy. In a case from the English Court of Appeal we look at a situation where the injured parties were engaged in a minor criminal act when they were injured - did that bar them from a successful action?

In Campbell v Gordon the Supreme Court considered whether an employee injured at work has a remedy if his employer goes into liquidation without insurance, while in DK v The Marist Brothers, the distinction between prescription and limitation was considered.

Finally, we have two cases in which successful defences were argued. Murray v McCullough is a welcome decision which reminds pursuers that they have a responsibility for their own personal safety when taking part in sport, while Shackleton v M-I Drilling Fluids demonstrates that even where duties are said to be absolute, a defence can still be possible.

Crime Doesn't Pay - Criminal Enterprise and Negligence

How should the law treat a claim in which the claimants are part of criminal enterprise, but in which the negligence of the defendant also played a part?

Beaumont & O'Neill v David Ferrer [2016] EWCA Civ...