Carnegie (AP) v Lord Rodger Of Earlsferry QC, HM Advocate As Representing The Ministry Of Defence [2000] ScotCS 7 (13 January 2000)

Carnegie (AP) v Lord Rodger Of Earlsferry QC, HM Advocate As Representing The Ministry Of Defence [2000] ScotCS 7 (13 January 2000)

The court held that the pursuer failed to demonstrate that the alleged continuing course of assaults or omissions extended into the three-year period prior to the commencement of the action. The last specific incident of assault could not be dated within the triennium, and the evidence did not support a continuing...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2000] ScotCS 7
Parties
Pursuer: Andrew Carnegie (A. P.); Defender: The Right Honourable The Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Q.C., Her Majesty's Advocate, as representing The Ministry of Defence
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
13 January 2000
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Claim (damages) / Preliminary Proof on Time Bar (limitation)
Outcome
Action dismissed as time-barred
Legal Topics
Bullying and Assault in Military Service, Vicarious Liability, Limitation Period for Personal Injury, Continuing Acts or Omissions, Causation of Psychiatric Injury
Tort Personal Injury Military Law Limitation of Actions Bullying and Assault in Military Service Vicarious Liability Limitation Period for Personal Injury Continuing Acts or Omissions +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andrew Carnegie (A. P.)

Pursuer

The Right Honourable The Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Q.C., Her Majesty's Advocate, as representing The Ministry of Defence

Defender

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Claim (damages) / Preliminary Proof on Time Bar (limitation)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer's action is time-barred under the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973, section 17(2)
  2. 2 Whether the alleged acts or omissions constituted a continuing act or omission for limitation purposes
  3. 3 Whether the injuries were sufficiently serious to justify bringing an action of damages

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the pursuer failed to demonstrate that the alleged continuing course of assaults or omissions extended into the three-year period prior to the commencement of the action. The last specific incident of assault could not be dated within the triennium, and the evidence did not support a continuing omission by the Army authorities within that period. Therefore, the action was time-barred under section 17(2) of the 1973 Act.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed as time-barred

Orders

  • Plea-in-law one for the defender sustained
  • Action dismissed