ROSEMARY WINTER-SCOTT, THE ACCOUNTANT IN BANKRUPTCY v. BALFOUR & MANSON [2013] ScotSC 85 (23 September 2013)

ROSEMARY WINTER-SCOTT, THE ACCOUNTANT IN BANKRUPTCY v. BALFOUR & MANSON [2013] ScotSC 85 (23 September 2013)

The appellant had actual awareness of actionable loss and its cause by 14 February 2007, as evidenced by correspondence and withdrawal of respondents due to conflict; no evidence was led to support postponement under section 11(3); the claim was prescribed as the action was not served within five years of awareness.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2013] ScotSC 85
Parties
Pursuer and Appellant: Rosemary Winter-Scott, The Accountant in Bankruptcy; Defenders and Respondents: Balfour & Manson LLP and individual partners
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
23 September 2013
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Sheriff's Interlocutor Following Preliminary Proof
Outcome
appeal refused
Legal Topics
Prescription and Limitation, Solicitor's Negligence, Damages, Awareness of Loss, Reasonable Diligence
Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Bankruptcy Prescription and Limitation Solicitor's Negligence Damages Awareness of Loss Reasonable Diligence

Source-derived case record

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rosemary Winter-Scott, The Accountant in Bankruptcy

Pursuer and Appellant

Balfour & Manson LLP and individual partners

Defenders and Respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Sheriff's Interlocutor Following Preliminary Proof

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's claim for damages against the respondents for alleged negligence was prescribed under the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973
  2. 2 Whether the appellant had actual or constructive awareness of actionable loss within the statutory period
  3. 3 Whether reasonable diligence postponed the prescriptive period

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant had actual awareness of actionable loss and its cause by 14 February 2007, as evidenced by correspondence and withdrawal of respondents due to conflict; no evidence was led to support postponement under section 11(3); the claim was prescribed as the action was not served within five years of awareness.

Court Disposition

appeal refused

Orders

  • adheres to the sheriff's interlocutor of 21 January 2013
  • certifies the appeal as suitable for the employment of junior counsel