Pringle v Murray & Ors [2004] ScotCS 193 (30 July 2004)
- Citation
- [2004] ScotCS 193
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Posture
- Civil / Interlocutory (preliminary Proof Ordered)
More details
- Posture
- Civil / Interlocutory (preliminary Proof Ordered)
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
References to section 17 of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 and averments regarding the Administration of Childrens Homes (Scotland) Regulations 1959 are irrelevant and excluded; a preliminary proof is allowed on the issue raised by section 19A.
Court disposition
Partial exclusion of claims; preliminary proof allowed on section 19A issue
Orders
- Sustain defenders' plea to relevancy regarding section 17 and exclude all references to it
- Exclude averments in Condescendence 9 regarding the Administration of Childrens Homes (Scotland) Regulations 1959
- Allow preliminary proof on averments in Condescendence 11 and Answer 11 relating to section 19A
02
Material facts
Parties
Jacqueline Pringle or Whitton
Pursuer Counsel: McEachran, Q.C., Stirling; Drummond Miller, W.S.Sister Bernard Mary Murray and Others
Defenders Counsel: Cullen, Q.C., Duncan; Simpson & Marwick, W.S.03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil / Interlocutory (preliminary Proof Ordered)
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether references to section 17 of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 are relevant
- 02
Whether averments regarding the Administration of Childrens Homes (Scotland) Regulations 1959 should be excluded
- 03
Whether a preliminary proof should be allowed on issues under section 19A of the Act
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The pursuer sought to rely on section 17 of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 and averments regarding the Administration of Childrens Homes (Scotland) Regulations 1959.
- Respondent
- The defenders challenged the relevancy of references to section 17 and the averments regarding the 1959 Regulations.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Opinion in the case of Adeline Bowden
References to section 17 of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 are not relevant in this context.
- 02
Court's present opinion
Averments regarding the Administration of Childrens Homes (Scotland) Regulations 1959 are to be excluded from consideration.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
References to section 17 of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 and averments regarding the Administration of Childrens Homes (Scotland) Regulations 1959 are irrelevant and excluded; a preliminary proof is allowed on the issue raised by section 19A.
Court disposition
Partial exclusion of claims; preliminary proof allowed on section 19A issue
- Sustain defenders' plea to relevancy regarding section 17 and exclude all references to it
- Exclude averments in Condescendence 9 regarding the Administration of Childrens Homes (Scotland) Regulations 1959
- Allow preliminary proof on averments in Condescendence 11 and Answer 11 relating to section 19A
Source and reliance status
Official court record
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Court record
Judgment
[ Home ] [ Databases ] [ World Law ] [ Multidatabase Search ] [ Help ] [ Feedback ] [
DONATE ] Scottish Court of Session Decisions You are here:
BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Pringle v Murray & Ors [2004] ScotCS 193 (30 July 2004) URL: https://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/2004/193.html Cite as: [2004] ScotCS 193 [ New search ] [ Help ] Pringle v Murray & Ors [2004] ScotCS 193 (30 July 2004) OUTER HOUSE, COURT OF SESSION A1200/00
OPINION OF LORD JOHNSTON in the cause JACQUELINE PRINGLE or WHITTON Pursuer; against SISTER BERNARD MARY MURRAY and OTHERS Defenders: ____ Pursuer: McEachran, Q. C., Stirling; Drummond Miller, W. S. Defenders: Cullen, Q. C., Duncan; Simpson & Marwick, W. S. 30 July 2004 [1] For the reasons given by myself in my Opinion in the case of Adeline Bowden I will sustain the defenders' plea in law to the relevancy to the extent of excluding from further consideration all references to section 17 of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 as amended. I shall exclude from further consideration the averments in Condescendence 9 in relation to the Administration of Childrens Homes (Scotland) Regulations 1959. Quoad ultra I shall allow a preliminary proof in respect of the averments in Condescendence 11 and Answer 11 relating to the issue raised by section 19A of the same Act. BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII URL: https://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/2004/193.html
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.