JOHN ABRAM (AP) AGAINST BRITISH INTERNATIONAL HELICOPTERS Ltd [2014] ScotCS CSIH_53 (12 June 2014)

JOHN ABRAM (AP) AGAINST BRITISH INTERNATIONAL HELICOPTERS Ltd [2014] ScotCS CSIH_53 (12 June 2014)

The action was properly dismissed because there was inordinate and inexcusable delay attributable to the pursuer or his agents, and this delay resulted in a substantial risk that a fair trial was no longer possible due to the deterioration and lack of evidence, particularly regarding the pursuer's condition in the years following the accident. The Lord Ordinary correctly exercised discretion under Rule of Court 21A.1, and the reclaiming motion must fail.

Citation
[2014] ScotCS CSIH_53
Parties
Pursuer and Reclaimer: John Abram (AP); Defenders and Respondents: British International Helicopters Ltd
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
12 June 2014
Procedural Posture
Reclaiming Motion (appeal) in a Personal Injury Action / Appeal From Dismissal Under Rule of Court 21 A.1 for Inordinate and Inexcusable Delay
Outcome
Reclaiming motion refused; action dismissed.
Legal Topics
Inordinate and Inexcusable Delay, Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Fair Trial, Prejudice Due to Delay, Warsaw Convention, Limitation and Prescription
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Aviation Law Inordinate and Inexcusable Delay Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Fair Trial Prejudice Due to Delay Warsaw Convention +1 more

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

Parties

John Abram (AP)

Pursuer and Reclaimer

British International Helicopters Ltd

Defenders and Respondents

Procedural Posture

Reclaiming Motion (appeal) in a Personal Injury Action / Appeal From Dismissal Under Rule of Court 21 A.1 for Inordinate and Inexcusable Delay

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether inordinate and inexcusable delay occurred in progressing the claim
  2. 2 Whether such delay resulted in unfairness making a fair trial impossible or substantially at risk
  3. 3 Whether the Lord Ordinary properly exercised discretion under Rule of Court 21A.1

Ratio Decidendi

The action was properly dismissed because there was inordinate and inexcusable delay attributable to the pursuer or his agents, and this delay resulted in a substantial risk that a fair trial was no longer possible due to the deterioration and lack of evidence, particularly regarding the pursuer's condition in the years following the accident. The Lord Ordinary correctly exercised discretion under Rule of Court 21A.1, and the reclaiming motion must fail.

Court Disposition

Reclaiming motion refused; action dismissed.

Orders

  • Refusal of reclaiming motion
  • Dismissal of the action under Rule of Court 21A.1