MANNAS, ANJI MANNAS (AP) AGAINST CHIEF CONSTABLE OF THE POLICE SERVICE OF SCOTLAND AND JAMES McSWEEN [2018] ScotCS CSOH_126 (28 December 2018)

MANNAS, ANJI MANNAS (AP) AGAINST CHIEF CONSTABLE OF THE POLICE SERVICE OF SCOTLAND AND JAMES McSWEEN [2018] ScotCS CSOH_126 (28 December 2018)

Although the delay was inordinate and inexcusable, the availability of contemporaneous witness statements and expert reports meant a fair trial was still possible. Any evidential gaps or uncertainties would prejudice the pursuer, not the defender. The threshold for dismissal under Rule 21A was not met as there was no substantial risk that justice could not be done.

Citation
[2018] ScotCS CSOH_126
Parties
Pursuer: Anji Mannas (AP); Defender: Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland; Third Party: James McSween
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
28 December 2018
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Action (road Traffic Accident) / Motion to Dismiss for Inordinate and Inexcusable Delay Under Rule of Court 21 a
Outcome
Defender's motion to dismiss refused.
Legal Topics
Inordinate and Inexcusable Delay, Dismissal for Delay, Fair Trial, Causation of Psychological Injury, Admissibility of Prior Judgments
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Inordinate and Inexcusable Delay Dismissal for Delay Fair Trial Causation of Psychological Injury Admissibility of Prior Judgments

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anji Mannas (AP)

Pursuer

Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland

Defender

James McSween

Third Party

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Action (road Traffic Accident) / Motion to Dismiss for Inordinate and Inexcusable Delay Under Rule of Court 21 a

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was inordinate and inexcusable delay in progressing the claim
  2. 2 Whether such delay resulted in unfairness specific to the factual circumstances of the claim
  3. 3 Whether the action should be dismissed under Rule of Court 21A

Ratio Decidendi

Although the delay was inordinate and inexcusable, the availability of contemporaneous witness statements and expert reports meant a fair trial was still possible. Any evidential gaps or uncertainties would prejudice the pursuer, not the defender. The threshold for dismissal under Rule 21A was not met as there was no substantial risk that justice could not be done.

Court Disposition

Defender's motion to dismiss refused.

Orders

  • Action to proceed; case to be actively managed to avoid further delay; case put out by order to hear submissions on further procedure.