Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
Scottish Court of Session Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Bennett v Independent Insurance Co Ltd [2001] ScotCS 3 (9 January 2001)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/2001/3.html
Cite as: [2001] ScotCS 3
[New search] [Help]
|
OUTER HOUSE, COURT OF SESSION |
|
|
CA8/14/00
|
OPINION OF LORD MACFADYEN in the cause ALEXANDER BENNETT Pursuer; against INDEPENDENT INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Defenders:
________________ |
Pursuer: H H Campbell, Q.C., MacSporran; Thompsons
Defenders: Cullen, Q.C., Ms Paterson; McClure Naismith
9 January 2001
[1] The pursuer is a former employee of Monktonhall Colliery Limited ("MCL"). On 19 February 1996, while working in the course of his employment with them, he sustained injury. MCL went into liquidation on 9 May 1997. The pursuer raised an action in this court against MCL and its liquidator, concluding for damages in respect of his injuries. By interlocutor dated 21 April 1999 he was awarded damages of £20,000 together with interest thereon. That sum has not been paid. There is no likelihood of its being paid by MCL, since it is unlikely that there will be any dividend payable to ordinary creditors in the liquidation.
[2] In these circumstances the pursuer has raised this action against the defenders, concluding for declarator that he is:
"entitled to the benefit of the Business Liability Insurance Policy ... issued by the defenders to [MCL] in respect of his claim for personal injury arising out of an accident at work on 19 February 1996 and is accordingly entitled to payment from the defenders of the sums decerned for in his favour in the Court's interlocutor of 21 April 1999".
The defenders plead (plea-in-law 1) that the pursuer has no title to sue on or benefit from the policy. They also plead (plea-in-law 2) that his averments are irrelevant and lacking in specification. The case was appointed to debate on those pleas.
[3] The terms of the policy applicable to the present case were, with one material exception, to the same effect as those of the policy relied upon in the case at the instance of Joseph Aitken (CA7/14/2000). The exception was that the policy applicable in the present case did not contain the Unsatisfied Court Judgments clause relied upon in the Aitken case. Apart from the argument advanced in that case on the basis of that clause, the issues debated in the present case were identical to those debated in the Aitken case. I refer brevitatis causa to my Opinion in that case. For the reasons there set out, I am of opinion that the pursuer is entitled to decree of declarator in appropriate terms. I shall accordingly put the case out By Order for discussion of the terms of the appropriate decree.