Pope v. the Advocate General for Scotland [2002] ScotCS 3 (4th January, 2002)

Pope v. the Advocate General for Scotland [2002] ScotCS 3 (4th January, 2002)

Although it was reasonably practicable for the pursuer to have known the relevant facts before 28 June 1997, the court exercised its discretion under section 19A to allow the action to proceed, as the pursuer's delay was understandable and the defenders suffered no prejudice apart from losing a statutory defence.

Citation
[2002] ScotCS 3
Parties
Pursuer: John Henry Pope; Defender: The Advocate General for Scotland
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury/reparation / Preliminary Proof on Limitation/time Bar and Discretion Under Section 19 a
Outcome
Action allowed to proceed to proof before answer under section 19A discretion.
Legal Topics
Asbestos Exposure, Time Bar, Discretion Under Section 19 a, Pleural Plaques, Industrial Disease
Personal Injury Limitation of Actions Asbestos Exposure Time Bar Discretion Under Section 19 a Pleural Plaques Industrial Disease

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Henry Pope

Pursuer

The Advocate General for Scotland

Defender

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury/reparation / Preliminary Proof on Limitation/time Bar and Discretion Under Section 19 a

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 court should exercise its discretion under section 19A of the Act to allow the action to proceed despite being time-barred

Ratio Decidendi

Although it was reasonably practicable for the pursuer to have known the relevant facts before 28 June 1997, the court exercised its discretion under section 19A to allow the action to proceed, as the pursuer's delay was understandable and the defenders suffered no prejudice apart from losing a statutory defence.

Court Disposition

Action allowed to proceed to proof before answer under section 19A discretion.

Orders

  • Repel the pursuer's third plea-in-law.
  • Sustain the pursuer's fourth plea-in-law.