McGregor v. Alpha Airports Group Plc [2010] ScotCS CSOH_110 (10 August 2010)

McGregor v. Alpha Airports Group Plc [2010] ScotCS CSOH_110 (10 August 2010)

The motion to allow the Minute of Amendment was refused because it sought to introduce a fundamentally new case based on new factual averments years after the limitation period had expired, without satisfactory explanation for the delay. Allowing the amendment would cause prejudice to the defenders, who had already investigated and incurred costs on the original case. The pursuer had prior legal representation and opportunities to amend but failed to do so timeously. The interests of justice and procedural fairness required refusal of the motion.

Citation
[2010] ScotCS CSOH_110
Parties
Pursuer: Raymond Allan Sinclair McGregor; Defender: Alpha Airports Group Plc
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
10 August 2010
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury/reparation Action / Motion to Allow Minute of Amendment Prior to Third Diet of Proof
Outcome
Motion refused
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Time Bar/limitation, Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992, Common Law Negligence, Party Litigant Procedure
Civil Procedure Employment Law Personal Injury Amendment of Pleadings Time Bar/limitation Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 Common Law Negligence Party Litigant Procedure

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

Parties

Raymond Allan Sinclair McGregor

Pursuer

Alpha Airports Group Plc

Defender

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury/reparation Action / Motion to Allow Minute of Amendment Prior to Third Diet of Proof

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer should be allowed to amend pleadings to introduce new factual averments and grounds of fault after significant delay and after expiry of limitation period
  2. 2 Whether the amendment constitutes a new case or merely elaborates the existing case
  3. 3 Whether prejudice to either party justifies granting or refusing the amendment

Ratio Decidendi

The motion to allow the Minute of Amendment was refused because it sought to introduce a fundamentally new case based on new factual averments years after the limitation period had expired, without satisfactory explanation for the delay. Allowing the amendment would cause prejudice to the defenders, who had already investigated and incurred costs on the original case. The pursuer had prior legal representation and opportunities to amend but failed to do so timeously. The interests of justice and procedural fairness required refusal of the motion.

Court Disposition

Motion refused

Orders

  • Pursuer's motion to allow Minute of Amendment refused