Hibs’ Scott Allan agrees £6m pedestrian compensation

Hibs' Scott Allan. Picture : Jane Barlow

Hibs' Scott Allan. Picture : Jane Barlow

Share this article
10
Have your say

Scottish footballer Scott Allan has agreed to pay out more than £6m in damages after a road accident which left a pedestrian with “devastating” head injuries.

The tragic accident happened after 23-year-old Hibernian midfielder Allan struck the pedestrian while driving his £50,000 luxury Audi Q7 car in Southsea, Hampshire, in November 2012.

At the time Allen , who has played for the Scottish Under 21 team, was a West Bromwich Albion player on loan at Portsmouth.

The pedestrian is to get a £2m lump sum and annual payments of £165,000 until 2027 and £190,000 thereafter making an overall award in excess of £6m.

The damages will be paid for by Allan’s insurers.

Judge Barry Cotter QC who approved the agreed settlement of the action granted anonymity to the pedestrian to protect his privacy.

He was a man in good health aged 53 at the time of the accident and rushed to Southampton General Hospital where he remained critical for some time.

His counsel Robert Weir QC told the judge he suffered “the most grievous injuries.”

The judge said the victim, now aged 56, suffered “a severe brain injury” which had left him with “a range of physical and mental difficulties.”

He said he had “no hesitation” in approving the settlement of a case where both liability and quantum had been in dispute.

He said the man’s family had been very supportive following the “devastating accident” and he wished the man and his family well for the future.

Julian Matthews counsel for Allan, of Glasgow, said while regretting the accident ever occurred they were extremely pleased to have reached agreement .

The judge refused to grant the footballer anonymity because he was not satisfied that it was right to do so bearing in mind the principle of open justice.

He was told there had been publicity at the time which might lead to the identity of the pedestrian, but said that was a limited risk.

But he said there was no public interest in naming the pedestrian or his family who brought the claim on his behalf, and made an order granting them anonymity.

Back to the top of the page