A, RECLAIMING MOTION BY A AND OTHERS AGAINST GLASGOW CITY COUNCIL [2019] ScotCS CSIH_6 (24 January 2019)

A, RECLAIMING MOTION BY A AND OTHERS AGAINST GLASGOW CITY COUNCIL [2019] ScotCS CSIH_6 (24 January 2019)

The Lord Ordinary was entitled, on the evidence and agreed facts, to conclude that requiring the respondents to pursue an alternative remedy would likely cause material delay, significant psychological harm, and difficulty in finding new solicitors, outweighing the prejudice to the reclaimers of losing the time-bar defence. No misdirection in law or excess of discretion was established; the appeal must fail.

Citation
[2019] ScotCS CSIH_6
Parties
Pursuers and Respondents: A & Others; Defenders and Reclaimers: Glasgow City Council
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
24 January 2019
Procedural Posture
Reclaiming Motion (appeal) / Appeal Against Exercise of Discretion Under S19 a of the Prescription and Limitation (scotland) Act 1973
Outcome
Reclaiming motion refused; Lord Ordinary's decision affirmed.
Legal Topics
Discretion to Disapply Limitation Period, Professional Negligence, Psychological Harm, Alternative Remedy, Equitable Relief
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Limitation of Actions Discretion to Disapply Limitation Period Professional Negligence Psychological Harm Alternative Remedy Equitable Relief

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A & Others

Pursuers and Respondents

Glasgow City Council

Defenders and Reclaimers

Procedural Posture

Reclaiming Motion (appeal) / Appeal Against Exercise of Discretion Under S19 a of the Prescription and Limitation (scotland) Act 1973

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Lord Ordinary erred in exercising discretion under s19A to allow the action to proceed despite being time-barred
  2. 2 Whether sufficient evidential basis existed for findings on prejudice and delay
  3. 3 Whether the balancing of prejudice between parties was correctly undertaken

Ratio Decidendi

The Lord Ordinary was entitled, on the evidence and agreed facts, to conclude that requiring the respondents to pursue an alternative remedy would likely cause material delay, significant psychological harm, and difficulty in finding new solicitors, outweighing the prejudice to the reclaimers of losing the time-bar defence. No misdirection in law or excess of discretion was established; the appeal must fail.

Court Disposition

Reclaiming motion refused; Lord Ordinary's decision affirmed.

Orders

  • Respondents allowed to proceed with the action under s19A of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973
  • No interference with the Lord Ordinary's exercise of discretion