Bathgate v British Telecommunications Plc [2000] ScotCS 297 (28 November 2000)

Bathgate v British Telecommunications Plc [2000] ScotCS 297 (28 November 2000)

The pursuer failed to aver relevant circumstances justifying the exercise of discretion under Section 19A. There was no explanation for the delay between 1993 and 1996, and the only reasons advanced (no alternative remedy and no prejudice to the defender) were irrelevant or unsupported. Therefore, the action is time-barred and must be dismissed.

Citation
[2000] ScotCS 297
Parties
Pursuer: James Bathgate; Defender: British Telecommunications Plc
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
28 November 2000
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Damages / Procedural Discussion on Time Bar Pleas
Outcome
action dismissed as time-barred
Legal Topics
Personal Injury, Limitation Period, Judicial Discretion, Time Bar, Section 17 and 19 a Prescription and Limitation (scotland) Act 1973
Tort Employment Law Limitation of Actions Personal Injury Limitation Period Judicial Discretion Time Bar Section 17 and 19 a Prescription and Limitation (scotland) Act 1973

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Bathgate

Pursuer

British Telecommunications Plc

Defender

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Damages / Procedural Discussion on Time Bar Pleas

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer's action is time-barred under Section 17 of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973
  2. 2 Whether the court should exercise its discretion under Section 19A to allow the action to proceed out of time

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer failed to aver relevant circumstances justifying the exercise of discretion under Section 19A. There was no explanation for the delay between 1993 and 1996, and the only reasons advanced (no alternative remedy and no prejudice to the defender) were irrelevant or unsupported. Therefore, the action is time-barred and must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

action dismissed as time-barred

Orders

  • first and second pleas-in-law for the defender sustained
  • action dismissed