E.A., AGAINST G.N. [2015] ScotCS CSIH_26 (07 April 2015)

E.A., AGAINST G.N. [2015] ScotCS CSIH_26 (07 April 2015)

The Lord Ordinary did not err in exercising discretion under section 19A to allow the time-barred claim to proceed, having properly considered the effect of the abuse on the pursuer and all relevant factors. The Lord Ordinary was entitled to limit liability to the period before the pursuer's sixteenth birthday, as the evidence did not establish that any apparent consent as an adult was vitiated by prior abuse or dependency. Both the reclaiming motion and the cross-reclaiming motion are refused.

Citation
[2015] ScotCS CSIH_26
Parties
Pursuer and Respondent: E A; Defender and Reclaimer: G N
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
07 April 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (reparation/delict) / Inner House, Extra Division, Court of Session (appeal and Cross Appeal)
Outcome
Both the reclaiming motion and the cross-reclaiming motion are refused.
Legal Topics
Sexual Abuse, Prescription and Limitation (scotland) Act 1973 Section 19 a, Reparation, Consent, Time Bar, Damages
Civil Law Delict Limitation of Actions Sexual Abuse Prescription and Limitation (scotland) Act 1973 Section 19 a Reparation Consent Time Bar +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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

E A

Pursuer and Respondent

G N

Defender and Reclaimer

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (reparation/delict) / Inner House, Extra Division, Court of Session (appeal and Cross Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Lord Ordinary erred in exercising discretion under section 19A of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 to allow a time-barred claim to proceed
  2. 2 Whether the Lord Ordinary erred in limiting liability to the period before the pursuer's sixteenth birthday
  3. 3 Whether the pursuer's apparent consent as an adult was vitiated by prior abuse and dependency

Ratio Decidendi

The Lord Ordinary did not err in exercising discretion under section 19A to allow the time-barred claim to proceed, having properly considered the effect of the abuse on the pursuer and all relevant factors. The Lord Ordinary was entitled to limit liability to the period before the pursuer's sixteenth birthday, as the evidence did not establish that any apparent consent as an adult was vitiated by prior abuse or dependency. Both the reclaiming motion and the cross-reclaiming motion are refused.

Court Disposition

Both the reclaiming motion and the cross-reclaiming motion are refused.

Orders

  • Refusal of the defender's reclaiming motion (appeal)
  • Refusal of the pursuer's cross-reclaiming motion (cross-appeal)