Smith v Shaw & McInnes Ltd [2001] ScotCS 96 (24 April 2001)

Smith v Shaw & McInnes Ltd [2001] ScotCS 96 (24 April 2001)

The discharge signed in 1990 does not bar claims for deterioration of Vibration White Finger resulting from exposure after that date; the pleadings provide sufficient specification of deterioration since 1990; the claim is not time-barred as the averments disclose a continuing act or omission.

Citation
[2001] ScotCS 96
Parties
Pursuer: Brian Smith; Defenders: Shaw & McInnes Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
24 April 2001
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Reparation / Procedure Roll (preliminary Hearing on Relevancy and Limitation)
Outcome
Proof before answer allowed; defenders' third and fourth pleas-in-law repelled; first plea left standing.
Legal Topics
Vibration White Finger, Personal Injury, Discharge of Claims, Limitation of Actions, Continuing Breach
Tort Employment Law Vibration White Finger Personal Injury Discharge of Claims Limitation of Actions Continuing Breach

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brian Smith

Pursuer

Shaw & McInnes Limited

Defenders

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Reparation / Procedure Roll (preliminary Hearing on Relevancy and Limitation)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the discharge signed in 1990 bars claims for subsequent deterioration of Vibration White Finger
  2. 2 Whether the pursuer's pleadings are sufficiently specific regarding deterioration since 1990
  3. 3 Whether the claim is time-barred under the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973

Ratio Decidendi

The discharge signed in 1990 does not bar claims for deterioration of Vibration White Finger resulting from exposure after that date; the pleadings provide sufficient specification of deterioration since 1990; the claim is not time-barred as the averments disclose a continuing act or omission.

Court Disposition

Proof before answer allowed; defenders' third and fourth pleas-in-law repelled; first plea left standing.

Orders

  • Allow proof before answer on the whole case
  • Repel defenders' third and fourth pleas-in-law