Adams v. Thorntons WS & Ors [2004] ScotCS 216 (17 September 2004)

Adams v. Thorntons WS & Ors [2004] ScotCS 216 (17 September 2004)

The pursuer was aware, or ought to have been aware with reasonable diligence, by 17 December 1990 of circumstances indicating loss and potential negligence, triggering prescription; section 6(4) does not operate to exclude prescription as reasonable diligence would have revealed any induced error.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2004] ScotCS 216
Parties
Pursuer and Reclaimer: John Don Adams; Defenders and Respondents: Thorntons W. S. & Others
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
17 September 2004
Procedural Posture
Reclaiming Motion (appeal) / Post Proof, Appellate Review
Outcome
Reclaiming motion refused; interlocutor of Lord Ordinary affirmed.
Legal Topics
Solicitor's Duty of Care, Conflict of Interest, Prescription Under Prescription and Limitation (scotland) Act 1973, Reasonable Diligence, Induced Error
Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Prescription and Limitation Solicitor's Duty of Care Conflict of Interest Prescription Under Prescription and Limitation (scotland) Act 1973 Reasonable Diligence Induced Error

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Don Adams

Pursuer and Reclaimer

Thorntons W. S. & Others

Defenders and Respondents

Procedural Posture

Reclaiming Motion (appeal) / Post Proof, Appellate Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer's claims are prescribed under section 6 and section 11(3) of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973
  2. 2 Whether section 6(4) applies to exclude prescription due to induced error
  3. 3 Whether the pursuer exercised reasonable diligence in discovering loss caused by alleged negligence

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer was aware, or ought to have been aware with reasonable diligence, by 17 December 1990 of circumstances indicating loss and potential negligence, triggering prescription; section 6(4) does not operate to exclude prescription as reasonable diligence would have revealed any induced error.

Court Disposition

Reclaiming motion refused; interlocutor of Lord Ordinary affirmed.

Orders

  • Proof on merits not allowed; Thorntons assoilzied from conclusions of the summons.