An action was raised in 1980 for damages for vibration white finger in which exposure had ceased in 1973. In early 1974 the pursuer had been advised by his solicitors that a claim against the defenders was unlikely to succeed. The pursuer argued that he had acted reasonably by accepting the advice of his solicitor in 1974 and that it was equitable to allow the action to proceed. The defenders argued that there was no explanation why, having decided not to proceed in 1974, the pursuer had raised the action in 1980.
Held: The court refused to exercise his discretion in favour of allowing the pursuer to bring the action out of time: ‘In my opinion however it does not follow that because at some stage within the triennium a pursuer has taken a reasonable course of action which results in a failure to raise an action timeously, that it must be considered equitable to allow him to proceed with an action after the expiry of the three year limitation period. … No doubt the reasonableness of the pursuer’s actings will have a bearing on the equities, but for the latter to be properly considered by the court circumstances beyond those averred by the pursuer in this case are required’.
Judges:
Lord Grieve
Citations:
1983 SLT 295
Cited by:
Cited – David Lannigan v Glasgow City Council OHCS 12-Aug-2004
The pursuer said the teachers employed by the defendant had failed to identify that was dyslexic, leading him to suffer damage. The defenders said the claim was time barred, which the pursuer admitted, but then said that the claim ought to go ahead . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Scotland, Personal Injury, Limitation
Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.200275
