Communicated on 17 September 2015

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 65084/14 Martin WILSON against the United Kingdom lodged on 18 September 2014

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Martin Wilson , is a British national, who was born in 1957 and lives in Glasgow .

The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

The applicant was employed by Motherwell College in North Lanarkshire, Scotland as a music lecturer. In September 1995 he suffered a back injury as a result of frequently lifting and carrying heavy musical equipment in the course of his employment. He subsequently went on long term sickness leave. On 31 May 1996 the applicant was dismissed from his employment. He successfully brought proceedings against Motherwell College for unfair dismissal and was awarded GBP 4,000.00 in compensation.

In December 1997 the applicant lodged a personal injury claim against North Lanarkshire Council and the Board of Management of Motherwell College (“the defendants”). His argument was two-fold: notably that there had been a breach of common law in the defendants failure to provide him with proper assistance with the manual work undertaken during his employment; and that they had breached their statutory duty to conduct a risk assessment and to provide instructions with respect to manual handling. The defendants lodged their joint defence on 13 February 1998 contesting the entire claim.

Between 13 February 1998 and November 2009 the Outer House dealt with approximately forty-seven procedural motions, including by way of a number of hearings. These motions included numerous requests for extensions to time-limits for submission of documents to the court; issues concerning access to the defendant ’ s premises and the disclosure of documents; several requests to amend grounds and to submit additional evidence; and administrative issues over the obtaining of hearing transcripts in addition to subsequent arguments by the applicant as to their accuracy. Furthermore, trial in the applicant ’ s case had been scheduled to commence on 28 September 2004 however it was adjourned upon his request. Three further trial dates set for May 2006, 14 November 2006 and 1 July 2008, were similarly adjourned upon the applicant ’ s request. Upon each occasion, the Outer House found the applicant to be liable to the defendants in respect of their expenses incurred.

The applicant ’ s civil trial was finally heard in four parts by the Outer House of the Court of Session between November 2009 and May 2011.

In a decision promulgated on 24 October 2011 the Outer House found, inter alia , that the applicant was an unsatisfactory witness and had failed to establish his claim under common law. The Outer House did find however that there had been a breach of the relevant statutory duty to conduct a risk assessment and to offer manual handling training to employees. Notwithstanding that finding, the House opined that t he applicant had failed to establish a causal link between the identified statutory breach and the injuries he claimed to have sustained. His claim was therefore dismissed.

On 16 November 2011 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Inner House of the Court of Session . His grounds included argument as to the “inordinate and inexcusable delay” in the case, the responsibility for which lay with the defendants.

An original deadline of 28 December 2011 was set for the applicant to lodge his full grounds of appeal. U pon his request , that deadline was later extended until 25 January 2012. On that date, the Inner House, having heard from the parties, found the applicant to be liable to the defendants in respect of their expenses occasioned at the hearing.

Between 25 January 2012 and 21 May 2013 the Inner House dealt with a number of procedural motions by way of hearings. These were notably at the applicant ’ s request and included requests for extensions to deadlines for the production of legal argument and documents .

On 21 May 2013 the Inner House listed the applicant ’ s case for a hearing in January 2014.

On 29 August 2013 the Inner House refused the applicant ’ s application for a stay on proceedings and reminded him of the need to adhere to court deadlines for the lodging of documents.

An appeal hearing was conducted before the Inner House in January 2014. In a decision promulgated on 19 March 2014, the Inner House dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal. It noted that:

“[i]n the course of his submissions to us Mr Wilson made it clear that he did not seek to argue all of his grounds of appeal ... We do not propose to set out in this opinion every submission or argument advanced by Mr Wilson. We propose to address those issues which were raised by him and were covered by his grounds of appeal.”

The court also made observations i n relati on to the length of proceedings. It stated, inter alia , that:

“It is regrettable, and unusual, that it should take some 17 years from the onset of Mr Wilson ’ s back pain to the disposal of the merits of this litigation at first instance. The length of this procedure may perhaps be explained in part by the fact that Mr Wilson and his legal advisors parted company and Mr Wilson conducted the litigation himself, without legal assistance, for some years before the proof. Mr Wilson also conducted the proof himself.

...

The conduct of a litigation without legal advice or assistance, particularly in an action such as this which raises complex questions of medical causation and involving evidence of fact and opinion from skilled witnesses, is not an easy matter. Complex legal issues involving the extent to which any injury to the pursuer was caused by negligence and a breach of the statutory duty on the part of the defenders and if so to what extent, if any, damages were due to the pursuer also arose. Although every latitude appears to have been given to Mr Wilson, litigation in our courts is adversarial and there are rules of procedure and evidence which apply to all parties.”

The question of expenses was continued to a hearing sc heduled for 28 October 2014. The Court has not been notified of the outcome of those proceedings.

The applicant did not pursue his civil case before the Supre me Court as he had been unable to obtain the req uisite certification by counsel. He did not seek to represent himself as, f ollowing a freedom of information request, the Supreme Court had advised him by way of letter dated 21 October 201 3 that that there had been no self-represented litigants in hearings before it .

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of his civil proceedings .

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Was the length of the civil proceedings in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement as provided for by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?