Chinn v Cyclacel Ltd [2010] ScotCS CSOH_33 (16 March 2010)

Chinn v Cyclacel Ltd [2010] ScotCS CSOH_33 (16 March 2010)

The pursuer's action is prima facie time barred under s.17 of the 1973 Act because she was aware of her injury and its attribution to her work by 2003. However, her averments in support of the exercise of the court's discretion under s.19A are relevant and sufficient to justify a preliminary proof on whether it is equitable to allow the action to proceed.

Citation
[2010] ScotCS CSOH_33
Parties
Pursuer: Amanda Sutherland Chinn; Defender: Cyclacel Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
16 March 2010
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Action / Procedure Roll Debate on Time Bar and S.19 a Prescription and Limitation (scotland) Act 1973
Outcome
Pursuer's action found prima facie time barred; issue of s.19A discretion to proceed to preliminary proof.
Legal Topics
Time Bar, Prescription and Limitation (scotland) Act 1973, Section 17, Section 19 a, Work Related Injury, Attribution of Injury, Equitable Discretion
Personal Injury Employment Law Limitation Law Time Bar Prescription and Limitation (scotland) Act 1973 Section 17 Section 19 a Work Related Injury +2 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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Amanda Sutherland Chinn

Pursuer

Cyclacel Limited

Defender

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Action / Procedure Roll Debate on Time Bar and S.19 a Prescription and Limitation (scotland) Act 1973

Legal Issues

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

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer's action is prima facie time barred under s.17 of the 1973 Act because she was aware of her injury and its attribution to her work by 2003. However, her averments in support of the exercise of the court's discretion under s.19A are relevant and sufficient to justify a preliminary proof on whether it is equitable to allow the action to proceed.

Court Disposition

Pursuer's action found prima facie time barred; issue of s.19A discretion to proceed to preliminary proof.

Orders

  • Sustain defenders' first plea in law to the extent of time bar under s.17.
  • Repel defenders' second plea in law regarding s.19A irrelevancy.