Barbara MacVicar or Butt and others against Robert Nimmo (Court of Session) [2026] CSIH 6 (28 January 2026)

Barbara MacVicar or Butt and others against Robert Nimmo (Court of Session) [2026] CSIH 6 (28 January 2026)

Section 22(4) of the 1973 Act only excludes jury trial where the action is competent solely by virtue of the relaxation in section 18(2)(b) (or 17(2)(b) for injured persons). Where the action is brought within the primary limitation period under section 18(2)(a), the exclusion does not apply and a jury trial is competent.

Citation
[2026] CSIH 6
Parties
Pursuers and Respondents: Barbara MacVicar or Butt and others; Defender and Reclaimer: Robert Nimmo
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
28 January 2026
Procedural Posture
Reclaiming Motion (appeal) in Personal Injury Action / Appeal Against Lord Ordinary's Decision to Allow Jury Trial
Outcome
Reclaiming motion refused; Lord Ordinary's interlocutor adhered to
Legal Topics
Jury Trial in Civil Cases, Limitation of Actions, Statutory Interpretation, Asbestos Related Disease Claims
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Law Jury Trial in Civil Cases Limitation of Actions Statutory Interpretation Asbestos Related Disease Claims

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

Parties

Barbara MacVicar or Butt and others

Pursuers and Respondents

Robert Nimmo

Defender and Reclaimer

Procedural Posture

Reclaiming Motion (appeal) in Personal Injury Action / Appeal Against Lord Ordinary's Decision to Allow Jury Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 22(4) of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 precludes a jury trial in a claim by relatives of a deceased where the action is brought within the primary limitation period under section 18(2)(a)

Ratio Decidendi

Section 22(4) of the 1973 Act only excludes jury trial where the action is competent solely by virtue of the relaxation in section 18(2)(b) (or 17(2)(b) for injured persons). Where the action is brought within the primary limitation period under section 18(2)(a), the exclusion does not apply and a jury trial is competent.

Court Disposition

Reclaiming motion refused; Lord Ordinary's interlocutor adhered to

Orders

  • Jury trial allowed to proceed
  • Averments in answer 6 after the general denial refused probation