Minshell v. The Advocate General For Scotland [2008] ScotCS CSOH_38 (26 February 2008)

Minshell v. The Advocate General For Scotland [2008] ScotCS CSOH_38 (26 February 2008)

The pursuer's action is time-barred because it would have been reasonably practicable for him, given his intelligence and experience, to become aware of the possible connection between his condition and the inhalation of Coolanol by 28 October 1998 at the latest. He failed to satisfy the requirements of section...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2008] ScotCS CSOH_38
Parties
Pursuer: Guy Darrell Minshull; Defender: The Advocate General for Scotland
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
26 February 2008
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Damages Action / Preliminary Proof on Time Bar Issue
Outcome
Action dismissed
Legal Topics
Prescription and Limitation (scotland) Act 1973, Section 17 Time Bar, Section 19 a Equitable Relief, Awareness of Injury and Causation, Personal Injuries in Employment
Personal Injury Limitation of Actions Prescription and Limitation (scotland) Act 1973 Section 17 Time Bar Section 19 a Equitable Relief Awareness of Injury and Causation Personal Injuries in Employment

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

Parties

Guy Darrell Minshull

Pursuer

The Advocate General for Scotland

Defender

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Damages Action / Preliminary Proof on Time Bar Issue

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer's action is time-barred under section 17 of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973
  2. 2 Whether it would be equitable to allow the action to proceed under section 19A of the Act

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer's action is time-barred because it would have been reasonably practicable for him, given his intelligence and experience, to become aware of the possible connection between his condition and the inhalation of Coolanol by 28 October 1998 at the latest. He failed to satisfy the requirements of section 17(2)(b), and there are no equitable grounds under section 19A to allow the action to proceed.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed

Orders

  • Action dismissed
  • All questions of expenses reserved