Description
In an action for damages for personal injuries, where liability was admitted but there was a dispute over quantum, a Tender had been lodged and accepted. The Pursuer made a motion to have two witnesses, a consultant orthopaedic surgeon and a vocational employment consultant, certified as skilled witnesses and to sanction the use of Counsel. The Pursuer argued that the employment of Junior Counsel had been appropriate because of the complexity of the case, which involved the issue of chronic pain syndrome. The value of the claim had also been increased during the course of the action. The Defender argued that the Pursuer's agents were very experienced reparation solicitors and that the claim involved nothing out of the ordinary. There was nothing unusual or complex in the action. The consultant orthopaedic surgeon had been the Pursuer's treating surgeon and had prepared two reports containing opinions on prognosis. The Defender argued that the consultant had done nothing beyond being the treating surgeon. The vocational employment consultant had produced a report to assist on the issue of the future employment prospects. The Pursuer argued that the consultant had specialised knowledge but the Defender's position was that his report had not been necessary. He was not an expert and had simply been asked to do a calculation. The Sheriff had to determine whether the case was appropriate for the employment of Counsel by considering whether it involved matters of difficulty, complexity and importance, as well as the value of the claim. He also had to determine whether the Pursuer's witnesses should be certified as skilled witnesses. MacPhail, Sheriff Court Practice and the Act of Sederunt (Fees of Witnesses and Shorthand Writers in the Sheriff Court) 1992 were considered.
