Fleming v Keiller [2006] ScotCS CSOH_163 (17 October 2006)

Fleming v Keiller [2006] ScotCS CSOH_163 (17 October 2006)

The pursuer failed to provide affirmative grounds for extension under section 19A. The delay was attributable to his legal advisers, for whose acts he is answerable. The existence of a reasonable claim for professional negligence against those advisers, combined with the absence of any good reason for the failure to raise proceedings timeously, means the policy underlying limitation statutes must prevail. The action is dismissed as irrelevant.

Citation
[2006] ScotCS CSOH_163
Parties
Pursuer: Graham Fleming; Defender: Derek Keiller
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
17 October 2006
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Action / Procedure Roll; Application for Leave Under Section 19 a Prescription and Limitation (scotland) Act 1973
Outcome
Action dismissed
Legal Topics
Limitation of Actions, Professional Negligence, Discretion Under Section 19 a Prescription and Limitation (scotland) Act 1973
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Limitation of Actions Professional Negligence Discretion Under Section 19 a Prescription and Limitation (scotland) Act 1973

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 6 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Graham Fleming

Pursuer

Derek Keiller

Defender

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Action / Procedure Roll; Application for Leave Under Section 19 a Prescription and Limitation (scotland) Act 1973

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should exercise discretion under section 19A to allow the action to proceed despite being time-barred
  2. 2 Whether the pursuer's averments provide sufficient grounds for extension of time
  3. 3 Impact of professional negligence by pursuer's legal advisers on limitation discretion

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer failed to provide affirmative grounds for extension under section 19A. The delay was attributable to his legal advisers, for whose acts he is answerable. The existence of a reasonable claim for professional negligence against those advisers, combined with the absence of any good reason for the failure to raise proceedings timeously, means the policy underlying limitation statutes must prevail. The action is dismissed as irrelevant.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed

Orders

  • Action dismissed; pursuer's averments held irrelevant