CG v Glasgow City Council [2010] ScotCS CSIH_69 (23 July 2010)

CG v Glasgow City Council [2010] ScotCS CSIH_69 (23 July 2010)

The pursuer's averments do not provide a relevant basis for postponing her awareness of the seriousness of her injuries under section 17(2)(b) of the 1973 Act. The test is objective, and the catalogue of abuse alleged would, on the statutory assumptions, have justified proceedings at the time. The action is therefore time-barred unless the court exercises its discretion under section 19A. Proof before answer is allowed on the section 19A application and the merits, given the state of the pleadings and practical considerations.

Citation
[2010] ScotCS CSIH_69
Parties
Pursuer and Respondent: C. G.; Defenders and Reclaimers: Glasgow City Council
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
23 July 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil (personal Injury/reparation) / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) Against Lord Ordinary's Interlocutor on Time Bar and Proof Scope
Outcome
Pursuer's third plea-in-law repelled; proof before answer allowed on section 19A application and merits (including quantum).
Legal Topics
Time Bar, Limitation Period, Section 17 Prescription and Limitation (scotland) Act 1973, Section 19 a Prescription and Limitation (scotland) Act 1973, Historic Child Abuse, Case Management, Objective Test for Seriousness of Injury
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Limitation of Actions Time Bar Limitation Period Section 17 Prescription and Limitation (scotland) Act 1973 Section 19 a Prescription and Limitation (scotland) Act 1973 Historic Child Abuse +2 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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

C. G.

Pursuer and Respondent

Glasgow City Council

Defenders and Reclaimers

Procedural Posture

Civil (personal Injury/reparation) / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) Against Lord Ordinary's Interlocutor on Time Bar and Proof Scope

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer's action is time-barred under section 17(2)(a) of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973
  2. 2 Whether the pursuer's awareness of the seriousness of her injuries was postponed under section 17(2)(b)
  3. 3 Whether the Lord Ordinary erred in allowing proof before answer on all issues rather than confining it to section 19A discretion

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer's averments do not provide a relevant basis for postponing her awareness of the seriousness of her injuries under section 17(2)(b) of the 1973 Act. The test is objective, and the catalogue of abuse alleged would, on the statutory assumptions, have justified proceedings at the time. The action is therefore time-barred unless the court exercises its discretion under section 19A. Proof before answer is allowed on the section 19A application and the merits, given the state of the pleadings and practical considerations.

Court Disposition

Pursuer's third plea-in-law repelled; proof before answer allowed on section 19A application and merits (including quantum).

Orders

  • Repel pursuer's third plea-in-law.
  • Allow proof before answer on (a) whether it is equitable under section 19A to allow the action to proceed and (b) the merits and quantum.