Clark v Argyle Consulting Ltd [2010] ScotCS CSOH_154 (19 November 2010)

Clark v Argyle Consulting Ltd [2010] ScotCS CSOH_154 (19 November 2010)

A complaint to the Financial Ombudsman does not constitute an arbitration for the purposes of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973. The process and effect of an Ombudsman decision are materially different from arbitration, and Parliament has not equated the two. Therefore, Mr Clark's claim is prescribed.

Citation
[2010] ScotCS CSOH_154
Parties
Pursuer: David Clark; Defender: Argyle Consulting Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
19 November 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Action for Compensation (breach of Contract, Delict, Breach of Statutory Duty) / Opinion and Final Judgment at First Instance
Outcome
Action dismissed as time-barred (prescribed).
Legal Topics
Prescription and Limitation, Arbitration, Ombudsman Schemes, Relevant Claim, Financial Advice Negligence
Civil Procedure Contract Law Delict (tort) Financial Services Law Prescription and Limitation Arbitration Ombudsman Schemes Relevant Claim +1 more

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

Parties

David Clark

Pursuer

Argyle Consulting Limited

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil Action for Compensation (breach of Contract, Delict, Breach of Statutory Duty) / Opinion and Final Judgment at First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a complaint to the Financial Ombudsman constitutes an arbitration for the purposes of interrupting prescription under the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973
  2. 2 Whether Mr Clark's claim is time-barred (prescribed)

Ratio Decidendi

A complaint to the Financial Ombudsman does not constitute an arbitration for the purposes of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973. The process and effect of an Ombudsman decision are materially different from arbitration, and Parliament has not equated the two. Therefore, Mr Clark's claim is prescribed.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed as time-barred (prescribed).

Orders

  • Action dismissed.