Jacobsen v Chaturvedi [2017] ScotCS CSIH_8 (03 February 2017)

Jacobsen v Chaturvedi [2017] ScotCS CSIH_8 (03 February 2017)

The pursuer failed to plead sufficiently specific and relevant averments to justify exercise of discretion under section 19A. Mere loss of remedy is not enough; absence of cogent equitable circumstances and existence of a prima facie case against solicitors preclude extension of limitation period.

Citation
[2017] ScotCS CSIH_8
Parties
Pursuer and Reclaimer: Bodil Birgitte Lund Jacobsen; Defender and Respondent: Shailesh Chaturvedi
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
03 February 2017
Procedural Posture
Reclaiming Motion (appeal) / Decision on Relevancy of Averments and Exercise of Discretion Under Section 19 a of Prescription and Limitation (scotland) Act 1973
Outcome
reclaiming motion refused
Legal Topics
Limitation Period, Section 19 a Discretion, Professional Negligence, Equitable Remedy
Civil Procedure Medical Negligence Limitation Law Limitation Period Section 19 a Discretion Professional Negligence Equitable Remedy

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bodil Birgitte Lund Jacobsen

Pursuer and Reclaimer

Shailesh Chaturvedi

Defender and Respondent

Procedural Posture

Reclaiming Motion (appeal) / Decision on Relevancy of Averments and Exercise of Discretion Under Section 19 a of Prescription and Limitation (scotland) Act 1973

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether pursuer's averments are sufficiently specific and relevant to justify exercise of discretion under section 19A of Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973
  2. 2 Whether pursuer has pled an equitable basis for extension of limitation period
  3. 3 Whether existence of alternative remedy against solicitors affects exercise of discretion

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer failed to plead sufficiently specific and relevant averments to justify exercise of discretion under section 19A. Mere loss of remedy is not enough; absence of cogent equitable circumstances and existence of a prima facie case against solicitors preclude extension of limitation period.

Court Disposition

reclaiming motion refused

Orders

  • Action dismissed; no extension of limitation period under section 19A of Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973