Drew v Rowan & Ors [2001] ScotCS 240 (24 October 2001)

Drew v Rowan & Ors [2001] ScotCS 240 (24 October 2001)

It is unreasonable to hold the defenders to an admission of fact withdrawn six years ago, especially when the pursuer was aware of the withdrawal and failed to pursue alternative remedies. The amendment is necessary to focus the true dispute.

Citation
[2001] ScotCS 240
Parties
Pursuer: Margaret Drew; Defender: Robert Rowan; Defender: Alan Boyd; Defender: Robert Boyd
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
24 October 2001
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Damages Action / Motion to Amend Pleadings
Outcome
Defenders' motion to amend pleadings granted
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Withdrawal of Admissions, Prejudice From Procedural Conduct
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Amendment of Pleadings Withdrawal of Admissions Prejudice From Procedural Conduct

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Margaret Drew

Pursuer

Robert Rowan

Defender

Alan Boyd

Defender

Robert Boyd

Defender

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Damages Action / Motion to Amend Pleadings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defenders should be allowed to amend pleadings to withdraw a prior admission of liability
  2. 2 Whether the pursuer is prejudiced by the withdrawal of the admission

Ratio Decidendi

It is unreasonable to hold the defenders to an admission of fact withdrawn six years ago, especially when the pursuer was aware of the withdrawal and failed to pursue alternative remedies. The amendment is necessary to focus the true dispute.

Court Disposition

Defenders' motion to amend pleadings granted

Orders

  • Minute of Amendment allowed
  • Pleadings to be amended accordingly