Description
Motion for expenses and caution:- In this action the pursuer sought damages from the defenders for injuries which he sustained as a result of an accident while in the course of their employment at Inverness Airport on 18 June 2003. It was the pursuer's case that he sustained the injuries to his back as a result of carrying two heavy cases of juice. The case was based on a breach of regulation 4 of the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 and the defenders' fault at common law. The pursuer has not had legal representation since 20 January 2009. On 1 December 2009 the case called for proof and was discharged ex proprio motu. On behalf of the defenders motions were made for:-(1) the expenses of the discharge of the diet of proof; and (2) caution for expenses. The motions were opposed by the pursuer. On behalf of the defenders it was submitted that the discharge of the proof was solely caused by the pursuer and was through no fault of the defenders. In justifying an order for caution the court was invited to consider:- (1) the pursuer's impecuniosity when taken with; (2) the lack of merit in the pursuer's case; and (3) the pursuer's behaviour in the course of the action. Here the court considered whether the general rule that expenses follow success or are payable by whoever has caused the expense should pay the cost, should apply. The court went on to consider the merits of the pursuer's case as presently pled and also his case, if allowed to amend outwith the triennium, and the issue of the impecuniosity of the pursuer, which of itself was not determinative, and whether he should be ordered to lodge caution for expenses.
