Joanna Cox against Optimax Clinics LTD and others (Sheriff Court Civil) [2026] SCGLA 43 (29 January 2026)

Joanna Cox against Optimax Clinics LTD and others (Sheriff Court Civil) [2026] SCGLA 43 (29 January 2026)

The pursuer failed to aver and prove that she was not aware, and that it was not reasonably practicable for her to become aware, of the statutory facts required to postpone the limitation period before 26 June 2012. The evidence established she was aware by 23 May 2012, following her consultation with Dr Mulvihill, that her injuries were sufficiently serious, attributable to LASIK surgery, and who was responsible. Accordingly, her claim against the first and third defenders is time barred under section 17(2)(b) of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973.

Citation
[2026] SCGLA 43
Parties
Pursuer: Joanna Cox; First Defender: Optimax Clinics Limited; Second Defender: Dr Adrian Roland Berry; Third Defender: Dr Asif Anwar
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
29 January 2026
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Medical Negligence / Judgment After Preliminary Proof on Time Bar
Outcome
Action dismissed as time barred against first and third defenders.
Legal Topics
LASIK Eye Surgery, Corneal Ectasia, Keratoconus, Time Bar, Prescription and Limitation (scotland) Act 1973, Awareness of Injury, Damages
Tort Medical Negligence Limitation of Actions LASIK Eye Surgery Corneal Ectasia Keratoconus Time Bar Prescription and Limitation (scotland) Act 1973 +2 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 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joanna Cox

Pursuer

Optimax Clinics Limited

First Defender

Dr Adrian Roland Berry

Second Defender

Dr Asif Anwar

Third Defender

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Medical Negligence / Judgment After Preliminary Proof on Time Bar

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer's claim for damages is time barred under section 17(2)(b) of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973
  2. 2 When the pursuer became aware, or ought reasonably to have become aware, of the statutory facts required to postpone the limitation period

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer failed to aver and prove that she was not aware, and that it was not reasonably practicable for her to become aware, of the statutory facts required to postpone the limitation period before 26 June 2012. The evidence established she was aware by 23 May 2012, following her consultation with Dr Mulvihill, that her injuries were sufficiently serious, attributable to LASIK surgery, and who was responsible. Accordingly, her claim against the first and third defenders is time barred under section 17(2)(b) of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed as time barred against first and third defenders.

Orders

  • Pleas-in-law for pursuer repelled.
  • First plea-in-law for first defender sustained.