Adams v. Messrs Thorntons WS & Ors [CA190_01.html] ScotCS 1 [2002] ScotCS 121 (26th April, 2002)

Adams v. Messrs Thorntons WS & Ors [CA190_01.html] ScotCS 1 [2002] ScotCS 121 (26th April, 2002)

The pursuer's averments are sufficient to justify enquiry into whether sections 11(3) and 6(4) of the 1973 Act apply to postpone or interrupt prescription, as the narrative of steps taken to ascertain the cause of loss and the alleged inducement of error by the defenders are matters requiring proof. The defenders'...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2002] ScotCS 121
Parties
Pursuer: John Don Adams; Defenders: Messrs Thorntons, W. S. and Others
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Procedural Posture
Action of Damages for Professional Negligence / Debate on Relevancy of Averments Regarding Prescription
Outcome
Defenders' second plea-in-law not sustained; proof before answer ordered on prescription issues.
Legal Topics
Prescription and Limitation (scotland) Act 1973, Solicitor's Duty of Care, Conflict of Interest, Reasonable Diligence, Error Induced by Debtor
Professional Negligence Contract Law Limitation and Prescription Prescription and Limitation (scotland) Act 1973 Solicitor's Duty of Care Conflict of Interest Reasonable Diligence Error Induced by Debtor

Source-derived case record

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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Don Adams

Pursuer

Messrs Thorntons, W. S. and Others

Defenders

Procedural Posture

Action of Damages for Professional Negligence / Debate on Relevancy of Averments Regarding Prescription

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer's claim for professional negligence is extinguished by prescription under section 6 of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973
  2. 2 Whether sections 6(4) and 11(3) of the 1973 Act postpone or interrupt the running of prescription in this case

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer's averments are sufficient to justify enquiry into whether sections 11(3) and 6(4) of the 1973 Act apply to postpone or interrupt prescription, as the narrative of steps taken to ascertain the cause of loss and the alleged inducement of error by the defenders are matters requiring proof. The defenders' plea-in-law on prescription cannot be sustained at this stage.

Court Disposition

Defenders' second plea-in-law not sustained; proof before answer ordered on prescription issues.

Orders

  • Case put out By Order to discuss scope of proof before answer and further procedure.
  • Expenses of the debate reserved.