BERNARD MILLS v. CANDLELIGHT ASSOCIATION [2013] ScotSC 19 (12 March 2013)
Where the nature of the obligation is disputed and prescription is a live issue on the pleadings, the onus of proof in a preliminary proof on prescription rests on the pursuer to establish that his right of action has not prescribed before the commencement of the action.
- Citation
- [2013] ScotSC 19
- Parties
- Pursuer: Bernard Mills; Defender: Candlelight Association
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judgment Date
- 12 March 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Summary Cause / Interlocutory Motion on Onus of Proof in Preliminary Proof Regarding Prescription
- Outcome
- Defenders' motion granted; pursuer's motion refused.
- Legal Topics
- Burden of Proof, Prescription, Limitation of Actions, Volunteer Expenses, Summary Cause Procedure
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Bernard Mills
Pursuer
Candlelight Association
Defender
Procedural Posture
Summary Cause / Interlocutory Motion on Onus of Proof in Preliminary Proof Regarding Prescription
Legal Issues
- 1 On whom does the onus of proof lie in a preliminary proof restricted to whether the pursuer's right of action has prescribed before the commencement of the action?
Ratio Decidendi
Where the nature of the obligation is disputed and prescription is a live issue on the pleadings, the onus of proof in a preliminary proof on prescription rests on the pursuer to establish that his right of action has not prescribed before the commencement of the action.
Court Disposition
Defenders' motion granted; pursuer's motion refused.
Orders
- Onus of proof in the preliminary proof on prescription rests upon the pursuer.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment