Pacetta v Clydesdale Bank Plc [2000] ScotCS 290 (20 November 2000)

Pacetta v Clydesdale Bank Plc [2000] ScotCS 290 (20 November 2000)

The pursuer's averments, taken as a whole, are sufficient to justify inquiry on the issues of time bar and relevancy, except for the lack of averments to support exercise of discretion under section 19A. The statutory duty under section 7 of the 1963 Act is absolute and does not require foreseeability. The defenders' preliminary pleas are not sustained at this stage, except as regards section 19A.

Citation
[2000] ScotCS 290
Parties
Pursuer: Margaret Ann Pacetta; Defender: Clydesdale Bank Plc
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
20 November 2000
Procedural Posture
Reparation (personal Injury) / Procedure Roll (preliminary Pleas on Time Bar and Relevancy)
Outcome
Pursuer's first plea-in-law repelled; proof before answer allowed on all other issues; deletion of specific averment in Condescendence 8 ordered.
Legal Topics
Passive Smoking, Time Bar, Limitation of Actions, Workplace Safety, Statutory Duty, Common Law Negligence
Employment Law Personal Injury Health and Safety Passive Smoking Time Bar Limitation of Actions Workplace Safety Statutory Duty +1 more

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

Margaret Ann Pacetta

Pursuer

Clydesdale Bank Plc

Defender

Procedural Posture

Reparation (personal Injury) / Procedure Roll (preliminary Pleas on Time Bar and Relevancy)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer's claim is time barred under section 17 of the Prescription and Limitation Act 1973
  2. 2 Whether the pursuer's averments are relevant to justify inquiry on statutory and common law duties
  3. 3 Whether sufficient averments exist to justify exercise of discretion under section 19A of the Act

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer's averments, taken as a whole, are sufficient to justify inquiry on the issues of time bar and relevancy, except for the lack of averments to support exercise of discretion under section 19A. The statutory duty under section 7 of the 1963 Act is absolute and does not require foreseeability. The defenders' preliminary pleas are not sustained at this stage, except as regards section 19A.

Court Disposition

Pursuer's first plea-in-law repelled; proof before answer allowed on all other issues; deletion of specific averment in Condescendence 8 ordered.

Orders

  • Repel pursuer's first plea-in-law (section 19A discretion)
  • Allow proof before answer on all other issues