Wilkie (AP) v Direct Line Insurance Plc [2000] ScotCS 192 (11 July 2000)

Wilkie (AP) v Direct Line Insurance Plc [2000] ScotCS 192 (11 July 2000)

It is inappropriate to decide the issue of prescription solely on the pleadings without hearing evidence, as the defenders' payments and correspondence may constitute relevant acknowledgement under Section 10(1)(a) of the Act. A preliminary proof before answer is required to determine whether the obligation was relevantly acknowledged within the prescriptive period.

Citation
[2000] ScotCS 192
Parties
Pursuer: Stuart Jeremy Peter Wilkie (AP); Defender: Direct Line Insurance Plc
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
11 July 2000
Procedural Posture
Civil / Procedure Roll Discussion on Prescription Plea
Outcome
Preliminary proof before answer allowed on the issue of prescription.
Legal Topics
Prescription, Limitation of Actions, Insurance Indemnity, Relevant Acknowledgement
Insurance Law Civil Procedure Prescription Limitation of Actions Insurance Indemnity Relevant Acknowledgement

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stuart Jeremy Peter Wilkie (AP)

Pursuer

Direct Line Insurance Plc

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Procedure Roll Discussion on Prescription Plea

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer's claim for indemnity under the insurance policy has prescribed under Section 6 of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973
  2. 2 Whether the defenders' actions constituted a 'relevant acknowledgement' under Section 10(1)(a) of the Act

Ratio Decidendi

It is inappropriate to decide the issue of prescription solely on the pleadings without hearing evidence, as the defenders' payments and correspondence may constitute relevant acknowledgement under Section 10(1)(a) of the Act. A preliminary proof before answer is required to determine whether the obligation was relevantly acknowledged within the prescriptive period.

Court Disposition

Preliminary proof before answer allowed on the issue of prescription.

Orders

  • Preliminary proof before answer restricted to the question of prescription, specifically whether the obligation was relevantly acknowledged within the five-year period preceding the action.