Description
The parties are severely at odds regarding (a) the nature of the work which the pursuer was doing at the time of his accident; and (b) the veracity of his claim to have been an employee of the defender company. As more fully discussed below the defenders maintain that at that time of the accident and for several days previously the pursuer had been engaged in the manual task of fixing roofing sheets and that his claim to have been on the roof in a supervisory capacity is untrue. More seriously the defenders maintain that the pursuer and his son Craig Rodger (the former managing director and principal of the defender company) have fraudulently asserted the existence of a formal contract of employment in the pursuers favour.
