A former RAF firefighter has lost his Court of Session action against the Advocate General after being unable to show a causative link between an injury suffered in the course of his duties and his subsequent incontinence.

In his judgement which could have wide ranging implications for proving consequential loss in work-related injury claims, Lord Uist pointed out that the pursuer's claim was without precedent.  The decision could severely restrict the extent and scope of of indirect symptoms that it will be possible to claim compensation for.

"The issue of causation in this case is clearly a novel one because, having regard to the clinical findings, there are no comparable cases upon which to draw in reaching a conclusion," he said, noting that two consultants who had been engaged to establish a causative link had failed to reach agreement.

"Mr Bartolo and Professor Swash were, in my view, only theorising: they were not drawing upon any empirical experience. Professor Swash himself described what he was doing as "a speculative exercise". Moreover, Mr Bartolo and Professor Swash had different reasons for making a causative link between the accident and the incontinence. Mr Bartolo thought that there had been a neurological injury, whereas Professor Swash did not. Both Mr Bartolo and Professor Swash were, in effect, doing no more than floating possible explanations for the pursuer's incontinence."

"I have therefore reached the view that the pursuer has failed to prove a causative link between the accident and his faecal incontinence. Having considered all the evidence I feel bound to concur with the view of Mr Finlay that we just do not know what is the cause of the pursuer's incontinence.

"Had I been satisfied that liability had been established I would, in light of the view I have taken on causation, awarded damages for the relatively minor and short-lived effects of the fall."