Strong v Craig Associates & Ors [2000] ScotCS 168 (16 June 2000)

Strong v Craig Associates & Ors [2000] ScotCS 168 (16 June 2000)

It cannot be determined, without hearing evidence, whether the pursuer could with reasonable diligence have become aware of her loss and its cause before 13 November 1993; the pursuer's averments are sufficient to allow a proof before answer on the issue of prescription under section 11(3) of the 1973 Act.

Citation
[2000] ScotCS 168
Parties
Pursuer: Mrs Judith Rose Strong; Defenders: Craig Associates and Others
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
16 June 2000
Procedural Posture
Civil Professional Negligence / Procedure Roll Hearing on Prescription Plea
Outcome
Proof before answer allowed on all issues, including prescription.
Legal Topics
Prescription and Limitation, Financial Advice Liability, Constructive Knowledge, Damages
Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Prescription and Limitation Financial Advice Liability Constructive Knowledge Damages

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs Judith Rose Strong

Pursuer

Craig Associates and Others

Defenders

Procedural Posture

Civil Professional Negligence / Procedure Roll Hearing on Prescription Plea

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer's claim for professional negligence is extinguished by prescription under the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973
  2. 2 When the pursuer became aware, or could with reasonable diligence have become aware, of loss caused by the defenders' alleged negligence

Ratio Decidendi

It cannot be determined, without hearing evidence, whether the pursuer could with reasonable diligence have become aware of her loss and its cause before 13 November 1993; the pursuer's averments are sufficient to allow a proof before answer on the issue of prescription under section 11(3) of the 1973 Act.

Court Disposition

Proof before answer allowed on all issues, including prescription.

Orders

  • Allow proof before answer of parties' respective averments.