Costs and “accidents at work” in Scottish personal injury claims - Gary Bowers V Aviva Insurance Ltd [2025] SC EDIN 57

In this recent decision from the All-Scotland Sheriff Personal Injury Court (ASSPIC), the appropriate scale of expenses following settlement of a personal injury claim arising from a road traffic accident was considered.

Background

The pursuer was involved in a rear-end collision while working as a self-employed taxi driver. He sustained soft tissue injuries to his trapezius and cervical spine, requiring analgesia and physiotherapy. The pursuer sued under Ordinary Cause procedure for damages of £25,000 but the case settled for £3,750. The pursuer sought expenses on the Ordinary Cause scale; however, the defender opposed the scale of expenses, arguing that the case fell within the Summary Cause regime.

Ordinary Cause procedure is ordinarily used where the value of an injury claim is over £5,000. Whereas Summary Cause procedure is used for claims under £5,000. Expenses are recoverable at a higher rate in Ordinary Cause procedure.

Legal issue

The central issue was whether the pursuer was entitled, in the first place, to raise the action as an Ordinary Cause and, consequently, recover expenses on that scale. The pursuer relied on Article 5 of the ASSPIC 2015 Order, which extends the jurisdiction of ASSPIC to cases involving personal injuries sustained in the course of work, provided the value of the claim exceeds £1,000.

The pursuer argued that the accident occurred during the course of his employment, therefore satisfying the definition of “work”. He also maintained that the action was properly raised as an Ordinary Cause due to its initial valuation of £25,000 and the nature of his injury.

The defender argued that the scope of Article 5 was not intended to apply to road traffic accidents involving taxi drivers. He emphasised that the defender had limited knowledge of the accident circumstances due to the lack of co-operation from their insured driver and that settlement was reached pragmatically.

Decision

The Sheriff held that the accident occurred during the course of the pursuer’s work and that the broad definition of “work” under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 encompassed self-employed taxi drivers. However, he clarified that it does not automatically entitle a pursuer to recover expenses on the Ordinary Cause scale.

The Sheriff noted that the pursuer’s statement of valuation (£3,923.48) and the settlement figure (£3,750) were well within the Summary Cause threshold. He therefore awarded expenses on the Summary Cause scale.

Key legal takeaways

• Definition of “Work”: The court reaffirmed that self-employed individuals, including taxi drivers, fall within the broad definition of “work” in the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and therefore there is an entitlement, for such claims with a value over £1,000, to be raised in the specialist All Scottland Sheriff Personal Injury Court (ASSPIC).
• Expense Entitlement: Raising an action under Ordinary Cause procedure, even in ASSPIC, does not guarantee expenses on that scale.
• Valuation Matters: In this case, the pursuer’s valuation was below the Ordinary Cause threshold of £5,000 which perhaps made the Sheriff’s decision more straightforward. However, if a defender considers that a pursuer has inflated their valuation, a similar challenge could still be made.