Hepburn v. Royal Alexandria Hospital & Anor [2008] ScotCS CSOH_81 (30 May 2008)

Hepburn v. Royal Alexandria Hospital & Anor [2008] ScotCS CSOH_81 (30 May 2008)

There was an inordinate and inexcusable delay of six years at a critical period, resulting in unfairness to the defenders, particularly as the case was substantially altered after many years and one key defender had died. The action should be dismissed as the delay prejudiced the ability of the defenders to properly defend the case.

Citation
[2008] ScotCS CSOH_81
Parties
Pursuer: Michelle Hepburn; Defender: Royal Alexandria Hospital; Defender: Dr David Gilmore; Defender: Mr Webster
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
30 May 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Action for Medical Negligence / Motion to Dismiss for Inordinate and Inexcusable Delay
Outcome
Action dismissed
Legal Topics
Inordinate and Inexcusable Delay, Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Prejudice to Defence, Limitation and Time Bar, Informed Consent, Standard of Care
Civil Procedure Medical Negligence Inordinate and Inexcusable Delay Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Prejudice to Defence Limitation and Time Bar Informed Consent Standard of Care

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michelle Hepburn

Pursuer

Royal Alexandria Hospital

Defender

Dr David Gilmore

Defender

Mr Webster

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil Action for Medical Negligence / Motion to Dismiss for Inordinate and Inexcusable Delay

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the delay in prosecuting the action was inordinate and inexcusable
  2. 2 Whether the delay resulted in unfairness and prejudice to the defenders
  3. 3 Whether the action should be dismissed as a result

Ratio Decidendi

There was an inordinate and inexcusable delay of six years at a critical period, resulting in unfairness to the defenders, particularly as the case was substantially altered after many years and one key defender had died. The action should be dismissed as the delay prejudiced the ability of the defenders to properly defend the case.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed

Orders

  • Sustained the first plea in law for the first defender and the second plea in law for the second defender
  • Dismissed the action