Leith v. Grampian University Hospital Trust [2005] ScotCS CSOH_20 (04 February 2005)

Leith v. Grampian University Hospital Trust [2005] ScotCS CSOH_20 (04 February 2005)

The pursuer failed to aver any special or sufficient circumstances to justify the exercise of the court's discretion under section 19A. The prejudice to both parties cancels out, and the availability of a claim against the pursuer's solicitors weighs against allowing the action to proceed. The action is therefore dismissed as time-barred.

Citation
[2005] ScotCS CSOH_20
Parties
Pursuer: Robert Christie Leith; Defender: Grampian University Hospital NHS Trust
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
04 February 2005
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Medical Negligence / Procedure Roll Hearing on Limitation and Section 19 a Discretion
Outcome
Action dismissed as time-barred; pursuer's plea under section 19A repelled; defender's first plea sustained; all questions of expenses reserved.
Legal Topics
Vicarious Liability, Limitation Period, Equitable Discretion Under Section 19 a, Medical Expert Evidence, Solicitor Negligence
Tort Medical Negligence Limitation of Actions Vicarious Liability Limitation Period Equitable Discretion Under Section 19 a Medical Expert Evidence Solicitor Negligence

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Christie Leith

Pursuer

Grampian University Hospital NHS Trust

Defender

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Medical Negligence / Procedure Roll Hearing on Limitation and Section 19 a Discretion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the action is time-barred under section 17 of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973
  2. 2 Whether it is equitable to allow the action to proceed under section 19A of the 1973 Act despite being time-barred

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer failed to aver any special or sufficient circumstances to justify the exercise of the court's discretion under section 19A. The prejudice to both parties cancels out, and the availability of a claim against the pursuer's solicitors weighs against allowing the action to proceed. The action is therefore dismissed as time-barred.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed as time-barred; pursuer's plea under section 19A repelled; defender's first plea sustained; all questions of expenses reserved.

Orders

  • Pursuer's third plea-in-law repelled
  • Defender's first plea-in-law sustained