Agnew v Scott Lithgow Ltd [2000] ScotCS 326 (19 December 2000)

Agnew v Scott Lithgow Ltd [2000] ScotCS 326 (19 December 2000)

The pursuer's averments are sufficiently relevant and specific to entitle him to a proof before answer on whether he was actually or constructively aware of the relevant facts within the triennium, and on whether section 19A discretion should be exercised. The statutory construction advanced by the pursuer is rejected; both actual and constructive awareness must be addressed, and the earlier date is determinative.

Citation
[2000] ScotCS 326
Parties
Pursuer: John Agnew; Defender: Scott Lithgow Ltd &c
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
19 December 2000
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury/reparation / Preliminary Proof Before Answer on Limitation (time Bar) and Section 19 a Discretion
Outcome
Preliminary proof before answer allowed on limitation and section 19A issues.
Legal Topics
Vibration White Finger (vwf), Time Bar, Constructive and Actual Awareness, Prescription and Limitation (scotland) Act 1973, Section 17(2)(b), Section 19 a Discretion
Personal Injury Employment Law Limitation of Actions Vibration White Finger (vwf) Time Bar Constructive and Actual Awareness Prescription and Limitation (scotland) Act 1973 Section 17(2)(b) +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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Agnew

Pursuer

Scott Lithgow Ltd &c

Defender

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury/reparation / Preliminary Proof Before Answer on Limitation (time Bar) and Section 19 a Discretion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer's action is time-barred under section 17(2) of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973
  2. 2 Whether the pursuer has sufficiently averred actual or constructive awareness within the triennium
  3. 3 Whether the court should exercise its discretion under section 19A to allow the action to proceed notwithstanding time-bar

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer's averments are sufficiently relevant and specific to entitle him to a proof before answer on whether he was actually or constructively aware of the relevant facts within the triennium, and on whether section 19A discretion should be exercised. The statutory construction advanced by the pursuer is rejected; both actual and constructive awareness must be addressed, and the earlier date is determinative.

Court Disposition

Preliminary proof before answer allowed on limitation and section 19A issues.

Orders

  • Allow parties a preliminary proof before answer of their whole averments relative to limitation.