In Bear Scotland Ltd (“Bear”) v Dammer, Perth Sheriff Court, 18 August 2025 (Sheriff Collins KC), the court found the defender liable to Bear for £8,179.18 in damages following a collision that caused significant damage to roadside barriers and associated furniture.

Background

The incident involved damage to approximately 15 metres of barrier and roadside furniture. When repairs were undertaken, an additional 10 metres of barrier were added, bringing the total replacement cost to £10,611.38. The court, however, made a reduction to reflect that the extra section of barrier extended beyond the damaged portion, ultimately awarding £8,179.18.

While the quantum was adjusted, perhaps the most notable aspect of the case was the defender’s argument that no award at all should be made, alleging a “fundamental lack of evidence” to prove the claim.

The contractual context

Bear holds a Scottish Government contract for the maintenance and repair of roadside furniture, awarded through a competitive tender process. Under this framework, agreed rates apply for various works, including repair and replacement, and the Scottish Government assigns rights of recovery to Bear against third-party wrongdoers.

Because the damaged barrier formed part of a motorway, its replacement was time-critical. Works were carried out overnight when lane closures could be safely managed.

The defender’s arguments

The defender contended that Bear’s case lacked evidential foundation, highlighting that:

• Bear’s only witness was its Commercial Director, who had not personally attended the site.
• The witness spoke to a summary of charges, but no underlying documentation was produced - such as the Scottish Government contract, CECA work rates, price fluctuation data, or purchase invoices.
• The work had not been carried out on the “open market”, allegedly leaving its value untested.

The court’s decision

Despite the criticisms raised, the Sheriff found the Commercial Director’s evidence to be sufficiently informed and credible. The court accepted that, because Bear operated under an ongoing contract with the Scottish Government, repairs could not be procured “on the open market". However, as that contract had been awarded through a competitive tender, the rates applied were considered market-tested and reasonable.

The court also found it entirely logical that Bear would maintain stock materials to enable immediate emergency works, particularly in a motorway setting where rapid response is essential.

Accordingly, damages were awarded - together with interest and expenses.

Commentary

This decision highlights Scots law’s pragmatic and flexible approach to assessing damages. It demonstrates that, in the right circumstances, credible and informed oral evidence - even in the absence of extensive documentation - can be sufficient to establish loss, provided the court finds it both reliable and persuasive.

For practitioners, Bear Scotland Ltd v Dammer reinforces that while comprehensive vouching remains best practice, credible witness testimony can bridge evidential gaps, particularly where the commercial and contractual context is robust and transparent.

The case was handled by Andrew Constable (Supervising Partner), with support from James McBride (Junior Associate) and Mandy Reid (Senior Litigation Executive). The Scottish team regularly publishes insights and case updates on key developments in Scottish cases, click here to subscribe.