Raymond Allan Sinclair McGregor v. Alpha Airports Group plc [2010] CSOH 110

Minute of Amendment:- In this action for reparation a proof has been fixed for 23 November 2010. The pursuer is a party litigant who formerly had the assistance of both solicitor and counsel. On 1 December 2009 Lord Bannatyne ex proprio motu discharged the second diet of proof and motions on behalf of the defenders for the expenses of the discharge and for caution for £25,000 for expenses were heard on 15 March 2010. Lord Bannatyne issued an Opinion dated 8 April 2010. Subsequently, a motion was enrolled by the pursuer which stated "that the pursuer be allowed a Minute of Amendment". Counsel for the defenders submitted that the motion was ambiguous and was opposed. Due to concerns by the court of the pursuer being able to follow the procedure the motion was amended by oral submission and counsel for the defenders provided written submissions for the pursuer's benefit. The case on record was limited to the alleged negligence by the defenders on a single day, 18 June 2003, involving a single task of carrying two cases of juice cartons which resulted in injury to the pursuer. Here the pursuer sought to introduce averments in relation to:- (1) his lifting catering and in flight bars, up and down aircraft stairs, on a daily basis from 1999 until 2003 in the course of his employment; (2) that it was company practice to work shifts without sufficient rest periods; and (3) that during his years of employment tachographs were not used and as a result there were no accurate records of his working hours. It was submitted on behalf of the defenders that the new averments come too late and they were an attempt to change the basis of the pursuer's case. Here the court balanced the pursuers interests, in particular, in light of his lack of representation, against the interests of the defenders, in particular, the prejudice to them if they were required to investigate new factual matters raised in the Minute of Amendment after the passage of time, in considering whether the minute of amendment should be allowed.