Pratt v. The Scottish Ministers [2005] ScotCS CSOH_59 (04 May 2005)

Pratt v. The Scottish Ministers [2005] ScotCS CSOH_59 (04 May 2005)

The motion to allow the Minute of Amendment was refused because the proposed amendment sought to introduce a new case of fault after the expiry of the limitation period, and the delay and resulting prejudice to the defenders justified refusal. The amendment was not a mere elaboration but a material change to the basis of the pursuer's case, and the defenders would suffer prejudice in investigating events so long after the fact.

Citation
[2005] ScotCS CSOH_59
Parties
Pursuer: Edward Pratt; Defenders: The Scottish Ministers
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
04 May 2005
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Action / Motion to Allow Minute of Amendment After Expiry of Limitation Period
Outcome
Motion to allow Minute of Amendment refused; leave to reclaim granted.
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Limitation Period, Employer's Duty of Care, Psychiatric Injury, Procedural Delay
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Employment Law Amendment of Pleadings Limitation Period Employer's Duty of Care Psychiatric Injury Procedural Delay

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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Edward Pratt

Pursuer

The Scottish Ministers

Defenders

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Action / Motion to Allow Minute of Amendment After Expiry of Limitation Period

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer should be allowed to amend pleadings to introduce a new case after expiry of the limitation period
  2. 2 Whether the proposed amendment constitutes a new case or merely elaborates the existing case
  3. 3 Whether delay and prejudice to the defenders justify refusal of the amendment

Ratio Decidendi

The motion to allow the Minute of Amendment was refused because the proposed amendment sought to introduce a new case of fault after the expiry of the limitation period, and the delay and resulting prejudice to the defenders justified refusal. The amendment was not a mere elaboration but a material change to the basis of the pursuer's case, and the defenders would suffer prejudice in investigating events so long after the fact.

Court Disposition

Motion to allow Minute of Amendment refused; leave to reclaim granted.

Orders

  • Minute of Amendment not received
  • Leave to reclaim (appeal) granted