Chinn v Cyclacel Ltd [2013] ScotCS CSOH_17 (30 January 2013)

Chinn v Cyclacel Ltd [2013] ScotCS CSOH_17 (30 January 2013)

The equities do not favour the pursuer because she had a full opportunity to establish her claim in the previous action, the deficiencies in her pleadings were due to her legal representatives for whom she is responsible, the defenders would suffer prejudice in terms of irrecoverable expenses and potential degradation of evidence, and the pursuer has a prima facie alternative remedy against her former legal advisers. Allowing the action to proceed would amount to granting a second bite at the cherry, which is not justified under section 19A.

Citation
[2013] ScotCS CSOH_17
Parties
Pursuer: Amanda Sutherland Chinn; Defender: Cyclacel Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
30 January 2013
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Damages Action / Application Under Section 19 a of the Prescription and Limitation (scotland) Act 1973 After Previous Action Dismissed as Irrelevant and Time Barred
Outcome
application refused
Legal Topics
Section 19 a Discretion, Time Bar, Work Related Upper Limb Disorder, Professional Conduct of Legal Representatives
Personal Injury Limitation of Actions Professional Negligence Section 19 a Discretion Time Bar Work Related Upper Limb Disorder Professional Conduct of Legal Representatives

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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Amanda Sutherland Chinn

Pursuer

Cyclacel Limited

Defender

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Damages Action / Application Under Section 19 a of the Prescription and Limitation (scotland) Act 1973 After Previous Action Dismissed as Irrelevant and Time Barred

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should exercise its discretion under section 19A of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 to allow a time-barred personal injury action to proceed after a previous action was dismissed for pleading deficiencies.

Ratio Decidendi

The equities do not favour the pursuer because she had a full opportunity to establish her claim in the previous action, the deficiencies in her pleadings were due to her legal representatives for whom she is responsible, the defenders would suffer prejudice in terms of irrecoverable expenses and potential degradation of evidence, and the pursuer has a prima facie alternative remedy against her former legal advisers. Allowing the action to proceed would amount to granting a second bite at the cherry, which is not justified under section 19A.

Court Disposition

application refused

Orders

  • The application under section 19A of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 is refused.