Stephen v North Of Scotland Water Authority [1999] ScotCS 287 (2 December 1999)

Stephen v North Of Scotland Water Authority [1999] ScotCS 287 (2 December 1999)

The pursuer did not become aware that his injuries were sufficiently serious to justify bringing an action until well after the accident, so the action is not time-barred under Section 17. Alternatively, even if time-barred, this is a clear case for the exercise of the court's discretion under Section 19A due to the absence of fault by the pursuer and his advisers and lack of prejudice to the defenders.

Citation
[1999] ScotCS 287
Parties
Pursuer: William Stephen; Defenders: North of Scotland Water Authority
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
02 December 1999
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Action / Opinion Following Proof (trial) on Limitation and Merits
Outcome
Plea-in-law for the pursuer upheld; first plea-in-law for the defenders repelled; case sent to proof before answer.
Legal Topics
Time Bar, Prescription and Limitation (scotland) Act 1973, Section 17, Section 19 a, Mistake as to Proper Defender, Knowledge of Seriousness of Injury
Personal Injury Limitation of Actions Time Bar Prescription and Limitation (scotland) Act 1973 Section 17 Section 19 a Mistake as to Proper Defender Knowledge of Seriousness of Injury

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

William Stephen

Pursuer

North of Scotland Water Authority

Defenders

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Action / Opinion Following Proof (trial) on Limitation and Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer's claim is time-barred under Section 17 of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973
  2. 2 Whether the court should exercise discretion under Section 19A to allow the action to proceed despite time bar

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer did not become aware that his injuries were sufficiently serious to justify bringing an action until well after the accident, so the action is not time-barred under Section 17. Alternatively, even if time-barred, this is a clear case for the exercise of the court's discretion under Section 19A due to the absence of fault by the pursuer and his advisers and lack of prejudice to the defenders.

Court Disposition

Plea-in-law for the pursuer upheld; first plea-in-law for the defenders repelled; case sent to proof before answer.

Orders

  • Uphold the fourth, which failing the third, plea-in-law for the pursuer
  • Repel the first plea-in-law for the defenders