Watt & Anor v Braer Corporation & Ors [1999] ScotCS 18 (14 January 1999)

Watt & Anor v Braer Corporation & Ors [1999] ScotCS 18 (14 January 1999)

The claim of the partnership is prescribed because the amendment was sought more than three years after the loss, and the statutory period under section 9 of the Merchant Shipping (Oil Pollution) Act 1971 had expired.

Citation
[1999] ScotCS 18
Parties
Pursuer: Joseph Watt; Pursuer: Magnus William Watt; Defender: The Braer Corporation; Defender: Trevor Williams; Defender: Anthony Jones; Defender: Michael Hudner; Defender: Assuranceforeningen Skuld; Minuter: The International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
14 January 1999
Procedural Posture
Civil / Motion to Amend Pleadings
Outcome
Motion refused
Legal Topics
Prescription, Amendment of Pleadings, Oil Pollution Liability
Civil Procedure Maritime Law Prescription Amendment of Pleadings Oil Pollution Liability

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph Watt

Pursuer

Magnus William Watt

Pursuer

The Braer Corporation

Defender

Trevor Williams

Defender

Anthony Jones

Defender

Michael Hudner

Defender

Assuranceforeningen Skuld

Defender

The International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund

Minuter

Procedural Posture

Civil / Motion to Amend Pleadings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim of the partnership is prescribed under section 9 of the Merchant Shipping (Oil Pollution) Act 1971
  2. 2 Whether amendment to substitute the partnership as pursuer is competent after prescription period

Ratio Decidendi

The claim of the partnership is prescribed because the amendment was sought more than three years after the loss, and the statutory period under section 9 of the Merchant Shipping (Oil Pollution) Act 1971 had expired.

Court Disposition

Motion refused

Orders

  • Motion to amend pleadings refused
  • Pursuers found liable to defenders and minuter in expenses occasioned by the amendment