SPENCER AGAINST RICHARD CRUDDAS AND OTHERS [2018] ScotCS CSOH_95 (25 September 2018)

SPENCER AGAINST RICHARD CRUDDAS AND OTHERS [2018] ScotCS CSOH_95 (25 September 2018)

The court held that, although there was active engagement by the defenders and the technical error in service was not egregious, the statutory scheme gives important protection to defenders, and the prejudice to the defenders in losing the benefit of the time bar outweighed the prejudice to the pursuer. The existence of a strong alternative remedy against the pursuer's solicitors was significant. It was not equitable to allow the action to proceed under section 19A, and the action was dismissed.

Citation
[2018] ScotCS CSOH_95
Parties
Pursuer: Kriss Spencer; First Defender: Richard Cruddas; Second Defender: Second Defenders; Third Defender: Third Defender; Fourth Defender: Fourth Defenders
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
25 September 2018
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Action (road Traffic Accident) / Procedure Roll Debate on Time Bar and Section 19 a Application
Outcome
Action dismissed
Legal Topics
Limitation of Actions, Prescription and Limitation (scotland) Act 1973, Section 19 a Discretion, Professional Negligence, Time Bar, Equitable Discretion
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Insurance Law Limitation of Actions Prescription and Limitation (scotland) Act 1973 Section 19 a Discretion Professional Negligence Time Bar +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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kriss Spencer

Pursuer

Richard Cruddas

First Defender

Second Defenders

Second Defender

Third Defender

Third Defender

Fourth Defenders

Fourth Defender

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Action (road Traffic Accident) / Procedure Roll Debate on Time Bar and Section 19 a Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should exercise its discretion under section 19A of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 to allow a time-barred action to proceed
  2. 2 Whether prejudice to the defenders outweighs prejudice to the pursuer
  3. 3 Whether the existence of an alternative remedy against the pursuer's solicitors is decisive

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that, although there was active engagement by the defenders and the technical error in service was not egregious, the statutory scheme gives important protection to defenders, and the prejudice to the defenders in losing the benefit of the time bar outweighed the prejudice to the pursuer. The existence of a strong alternative remedy against the pursuer's solicitors was significant. It was not equitable to allow the action to proceed under section 19A, and the action was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed

Orders

  • Action dismissed as not equitable to allow under section 19A of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973