Glasper v Rodger: SCS 1996

First Division – Inner House – Lord President Hope said: ‘In our opinion the lack of awareness which requires to be established for the purposes of section 11(3) of the 1973 Act is a lack of awareness that a loss has occurred caused by an act, neglect or default which gives rise to an obligation to make reparation for it. We agree with Lord Clyde’s observation in Greater Glasgow Health Board v Baxter Clark and Paul 1992 SLT at page 40D that the subsection looks for an awareness not only of the fact of loss having occurred, but of the fact that it is a loss caused by negligence . . A party who is aware that he has sustained loss, injury and damage may reasonably be expected to take some steps to find out what has caused that loss. Failure to do this will call for an explanation, if the test of reasonable diligence to which section 11(3) refers is to be capable of being satisfied.’


Lord President Hope


1996 SLT 44


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: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence, Limitation

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.552025