Cathcart (AP) v Arnold Clark Ltd [2001] ScotCS 31 (13 February 2001)

Cathcart (AP) v Arnold Clark Ltd [2001] ScotCS 31 (13 February 2001)

The proposed amendment constitutes a radical and fundamental change to the pursuer's case, effectively amounting to a new action outside the limitation period. The pursuer had knowledge of the relevant facts and failed to act timeously or provide satisfactory explanation for the delay. The interests of justice and prejudice to the defenders outweigh the pursuer's need to amend, and the amendment is refused.

Citation
[2001] ScotCS 31
Parties
Pursuer: Iain Cathcart (AP); Defenders: Arnold Clark Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
13 February 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil (personal Injury/reparation) / Motion to Allow Minute of Amendment
Outcome
Motion to allow minute of amendment refused
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Industrial Disease, Limitation of Actions, Legal Aid, Prejudice to Parties
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Amendment of Pleadings Industrial Disease Limitation of Actions Legal Aid Prejudice to Parties

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Iain Cathcart (AP)

Pursuer

Arnold Clark Limited

Defenders

Procedural Posture

Civil (personal Injury/reparation) / Motion to Allow Minute of Amendment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer should be allowed to amend his pleadings at a late stage to fundamentally alter the basis of his claim
  2. 2 Whether the lateness and nature of the amendment causes prejudice to the defenders
  3. 3 Whether the pursuer could have invoked Section 19A of the Prescription and Limitation Act to raise a new action

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed amendment constitutes a radical and fundamental change to the pursuer's case, effectively amounting to a new action outside the limitation period. The pursuer had knowledge of the relevant facts and failed to act timeously or provide satisfactory explanation for the delay. The interests of justice and prejudice to the defenders outweigh the pursuer's need to amend, and the amendment is refused.

Court Disposition

Motion to allow minute of amendment refused

Orders

  • Refusal to allow the minute of amendment lodged within 6 weeks of 5 December 2000 to be received