Docherty & Ors v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills & Anor [2017] ScotCS CSOH_54 (29 March 2017)

Docherty & Ors v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills & Anor [2017] ScotCS CSOH_54 (29 March 2017)

The court refused to allow amendment introducing a new claim based on English law after expiry of the limitation period, as it would radically alter the pursuers’ case and the court should be slow to exercise discretion in favour of such amendment after the triennium. The original claim was held irrelevant, and the new claim could have been brought in England within time. Accordingly, the action against the second defenders was dismissed. The motion to dismiss against the first defenders was refused, with further procedure to be discussed.

Citation
[2017] ScotCS CSOH_54
Parties
Pursuer: Louisa Docherty (and others, total 24 pursuers); First Defender: Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills; Second Defender: Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
29 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury (fatal Asbestos Exposure) / Motion to Amend Pleadings After Expiry of Limitation Period; Dismissal Applications
Outcome
Pursuers' motion to amend refused as against second defenders; action against second defenders dismissed; motion to dismiss against first defenders refused; further procedure to be discussed.
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Limitation of Actions, Choice of Law, Fatal Accidents, Damages for Asbestos Exposure
Private International Law Personal Injury Civil Procedure Amendment of Pleadings Limitation of Actions Choice of Law Fatal Accidents Damages for Asbestos Exposure

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

Parties

Louisa Docherty (and others, total 24 pursuers)

Pursuer

Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills

First Defender

Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd

Second Defender

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury (fatal Asbestos Exposure) / Motion to Amend Pleadings After Expiry of Limitation Period; Dismissal Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether amendment to introduce new claim after expiry of limitation period is governed by Scots or English law
  2. 2 Whether court should exercise discretion to allow amendment introducing new claim after limitation period
  3. 3 Whether action against first and second defenders should be dismissed

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused to allow amendment introducing a new claim based on English law after expiry of the limitation period, as it would radically alter the pursuers’ case and the court should be slow to exercise discretion in favour of such amendment after the triennium. The original claim was held irrelevant, and the new claim could have been brought in England within time. Accordingly, the action against the second defenders was dismissed. The motion to dismiss against the first defenders was refused, with further procedure to be discussed.

Court Disposition

Pursuers' motion to amend refused as against second defenders; action against second defenders dismissed; motion to dismiss against first defenders refused; further procedure to be discussed.

Orders

  • Refusal of amendment in respect of second defenders
  • Dismissal of action against second defenders