Morrice v. Martin Retail Group Ltd [2002] ScotCS 298 (22 November 2002)

Morrice v. Martin Retail Group Ltd [2002] ScotCS 298 (22 November 2002)

The pursuer failed to provide sufficient averments or explanation for the delay in raising the action, and there was no real prejudice to her if the action was dismissed, as she had a clear claim against her claims handlers. The court held that it would not be equitable to exercise its discretion under Section 19A to allow the action to proceed outwith the limitation period.

Citation
[2002] ScotCS 298
Parties
Pursuer: Lorna Morrice; Defender: Martin Retail Group Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
22 November 2002
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Reparation / Debate on Limitation and Exercise of Court's Discretion Under Section 19 a of the Prescription and Limitation (scotland) Act 1973
Outcome
action dismissed
Legal Topics
Limitation of Actions, Court Discretion Under Section 19 a, Negligence of Legal Representatives
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Limitation of Actions Court Discretion Under Section 19 a Negligence of Legal Representatives

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lorna Morrice

Pursuer

Martin Retail Group Limited

Defender

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Reparation / Debate on Limitation and Exercise of Court's Discretion Under Section 19 a of the Prescription and Limitation (scotland) Act 1973

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should exercise its discretion under Section 19A of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 to allow the pursuer's personal injury action to proceed outwith the triennium
  2. 2 Whether the pursuer's explanation for delay in raising the action is sufficient to justify the exercise of the court's discretion

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer failed to provide sufficient averments or explanation for the delay in raising the action, and there was no real prejudice to her if the action was dismissed, as she had a clear claim against her claims handlers. The court held that it would not be equitable to exercise its discretion under Section 19A to allow the action to proceed outwith the limitation period.

Court Disposition

action dismissed

Orders

  • sustain the defenders' first plea-in-law
  • repel the pursuer's third plea-in-law