AMN Group Ltd v Gilcomston North Ltd and others: SCS 20 Jun 2008

Outer House – The phrase ‘aware . . that loss, injury or damage caused as aforesaid had occurred’ as meaning ‘aware . . that a stateable prima facie claim . . could properly be advanced against someone’ the resolution of that issue will ultimately be one for the Lord Ordinary who hears the evidence and submissions at the proof before answer. It would be for the Lord Ordinary to assess: ‘whether the pursuers were by the critical [date] aware, or could with reasonable diligence have become aware, that relevant loss and damage known to them was actionable, in the sense that a stateable prima facie claim in negligence could properly be advanced against someone. Certainty or even probability of success in any such claim would not, I think, be required’
Lord Emslie
[2008] ScotCS CSOH – 90
Bailii
Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 11(3)
Cited by:
CitedDavid T Morrison and Co Ltd (T/A Gael Home Interiors) v ICL Plastics Ltd and Another SCS 14-Mar-2013
Extra Division – Inner House – An explosion at the defenders’ neighbouring premises had damaged those of the pursuer. The defenders now appealed against a finding that the claim was out of time calculated from the time when it had sufficient . .
CitedDavid T Morrison and Co Ltd (T/A Gael Home Interiors) v ICL Plastics Ltd and Others SC 30-Jul-2014
The claimant sought damages after an explosion at the defender’s nearby premises damaged its shop. The defender said that the claim was out of time, and now appealed against a decision that time had not begun to run under the 1973 Act.
Held: . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 February 2021; Ref: scu.270221