Carnegie v Lord Rodger Of Earlsferry QC [1998] ScotCS 16 (2 October 1998)

Carnegie v Lord Rodger Of Earlsferry QC [1998] ScotCS 16 (2 October 1998)

The interlocutor contained a clerical error by failing to repel the pursuer's third plea-in-law and exclude related averments from probation, contrary to the court's clear opinion. Correction is competent as it does not alter substance but corrects expression. Discretion should be exercised in favour of correction despite delay, as no material prejudice to the pursuer arises.

Citation
[1998] ScotCS 16
Parties
Pursuer: Andrew Carnegie (A. P.); Defender: The Right Honourable The Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Q.C., Her Majesty's Advocate
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
02 October 1998
Procedural Posture
Reparation Action (damages for Loss and Injury) / Motion to Correct Interlocutor Following Preliminary Plea on Time Bar
Outcome
Defender's motion for correction of the interlocutor granted.
Legal Topics
Correction of Interlocutor, Time Bar, Prescription and Limitation (scotland) Act 1973, Section 17, Section 19 a, Discretion to Allow Action Out of Time
Civil Procedure Limitation of Actions Correction of Interlocutor Time Bar Prescription and Limitation (scotland) Act 1973 Section 17 Section 19 a Discretion to Allow Action Out of Time

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andrew Carnegie (A. P.)

Pursuer

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

Defender

Procedural Posture

Reparation Action (damages for Loss and Injury) / Motion to Correct Interlocutor Following Preliminary Plea on Time Bar

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court can correct an interlocutor to reflect its true intention where a clerical error has occurred
  2. 2 Whether the pursuer's averments under Section 19A of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 are relevant and should be admitted to probation

Ratio Decidendi

The interlocutor contained a clerical error by failing to repel the pursuer's third plea-in-law and exclude related averments from probation, contrary to the court's clear opinion. Correction is competent as it does not alter substance but corrects expression. Discretion should be exercised in favour of correction despite delay, as no material prejudice to the pursuer arises.

Court Disposition

Defender's motion for correction of the interlocutor granted.

Orders

  • Interlocutor altered to repel pursuer's third plea-in-law and exclude from probation the averments at page 27B to 30C of the closed record.