SF v Quarriers [2015] ScotCS CSOH_82 (25 June 2015)

SF v Quarriers [2015] ScotCS CSOH_82 (25 June 2015)

The court held that the pursuer failed to discharge the onus of proving that he involuntarily forgot the abuse due to dissociative amnesia, and that the balance of prejudice, including the significant difficulties faced by the defenders in investigating the historic claim, did not favour the exercise of the court's equitable discretion under section 19A. Accordingly, it was not equitable to allow the action to proceed outwith the limitation period.

Citation
[2015] ScotCS CSOH_82
Parties
Pursuer: SF; Defender: Quarriers
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
25 June 2015
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Action / Preliminary Proof on Section 19 a of the Prescription and Limitation (scotland) Act 1973
Outcome
Action dismissed as time-barred; section 19A discretion not exercised in pursuer's favour.
Legal Topics
Limitation Period, Equitable Extension of Time, Vicarious Liability, Child Abuse, Dissociative Amnesia
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Limitation of Actions Limitation Period Equitable Extension of Time Vicarious Liability Child Abuse Dissociative Amnesia

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SF

Pursuer

Quarriers

Defender

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Action / Preliminary Proof on Section 19 a of the Prescription and Limitation (scotland) Act 1973

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether it is equitable to allow the pursuer's claim to proceed outwith the limitation period under section 19A of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973
  2. 2 Whether the pursuer's delay in raising the action was due to involuntary forgetting (dissociative amnesia)
  3. 3 Whether the balance of prejudice favours the pursuer or the defender

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the pursuer failed to discharge the onus of proving that he involuntarily forgot the abuse due to dissociative amnesia, and that the balance of prejudice, including the significant difficulties faced by the defenders in investigating the historic claim, did not favour the exercise of the court's equitable discretion under section 19A. Accordingly, it was not equitable to allow the action to proceed outwith the limitation period.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed as time-barred; section 19A discretion not exercised in pursuer's favour.

Orders

  • Refused to exercise discretion under section 19A of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973
  • Dismissed the action as time-barred