C.W. v Trustees of the Archdiocese of St. Andrews and Edinburgh [2013] ScotCS CSOH_185 (03 December 2013)

C.W. v Trustees of the Archdiocese of St. Andrews and Edinburgh [2013] ScotCS CSOH_185 (03 December 2013)

The pursuer failed to engage any of the statutory facts required by section 17(2)(b) within the relevant three-year period, and his explanation for delay was manifestly irrelevant. The court found that the pursuer's construction of 'employer or principal' was too narrow and that vicarious liability principles applied. Significant prejudice to the defenders due to the death of the alleged abuser and loss of evidence outweighed any equitable considerations for allowing the action out of time.

Citation
[2013] ScotCS CSOH_185
Parties
Pursuer: C W; Defenders: Trustees of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of St Andrews and Edinburgh
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
03 December 2013
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Action / Procedure Roll, Limitation and Discretion Challenge
Outcome
action dismissed
Legal Topics
Vicarious Liability, Sexual Abuse, Limitation Period, Court Discretion Under Section 19 a
Tort Personal Injury Limitation Law Vicarious Liability Sexual Abuse Limitation Period Court Discretion Under Section 19 a

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 22 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

C W

Pursuer

Trustees of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of St Andrews and Edinburgh

Defenders

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Action / Procedure Roll, Limitation and Discretion Challenge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer's claim is time-barred under section 17 of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973
  2. 2 Whether the pursuer can rely on section 19A of the Act for equitable relief to bring the action out of time
  3. 3 Interpretation of 'employer or principal' for vicarious liability in limitation context

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer failed to engage any of the statutory facts required by section 17(2)(b) within the relevant three-year period, and his explanation for delay was manifestly irrelevant. The court found that the pursuer's construction of 'employer or principal' was too narrow and that vicarious liability principles applied. Significant prejudice to the defenders due to the death of the alleged abuser and loss of evidence outweighed any equitable considerations for allowing the action out of time.

Court Disposition

action dismissed

Orders

  • Sustain defenders' first and second pleas in law
  • Repel pursuer's third and fourth pleas in law