Introduction

The case of Fiona Drouet and others against Angus Milligan ([2024] CSOH 32) adjudicated by the Scottish Court of Session on March 20, 2024, presents a significant development in the application of limitation periods to claims involving psychiatric injuries resulting in death. The case involves the tragic suicide of Emily Drouet, an 18-year-old law student, and subsequent legal actions taken by her immediate family against Angus Milligan, her former boyfriend.

Emily Drouet's family alleges that Milligan's coercive and controlling behavior caused her severe mental and emotional distress, ultimately leading to her suicide. The key legal issue centers on whether the family's claims are barred by the applicable limitation periods under the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973, particularly given the complexities surrounding psychiatric injuries and the discovery of a relevant medical diagnosis posthumously.

Summary of the Judgment

Lord Harrower, presiding over the case, examined whether the claims brought forth by Emily's immediate family members were time-barred under the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973. The initial summons filed by the Drouet family experienced procedural delays, leading to a preliminary proof focusing on the time bar rather than the substantive merits of the case.

The court delved into the interpretation of "personal injuries" and the commencement of limitation periods, especially in the context of psychiatric injuries attributed to another's conduct. Ultimately, Lord Harrower concluded that the adult family members' claims were indeed time-barred due to their actual awareness by April 12, 2016, of Emily's significant mental impairment attributable to Milligan's behavior. However, the claim brought by Emily's siblings, who were under 16 at the time of her death, was allowed to proceed as their limitation periods had not commenced.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment references several key precedents that influenced the court's decision:

• McLoughlin v O'Brian [1983] 1 AC 410 - Established the criteria for claims based on psychiatric injuries.
• Hinz v Berry [1970] 2 QB 40 - Differentiated between general grief and actionable psychiatric injuries.
• Agnew v Scott Lithgow (No 2) 2003 SC 448 - Provided insights into constructive knowledge and reasonable practicability in limitation periods.
• AB v Ministry of Defence [2013] 1 AC 78 - Clarified when knowledge triggers the commencement of limitation periods.
• Collins v Scottish Homes 2006 SLT 769 - Discussed equitable discretion under section 19A in relation to limitation periods.

Legal Reasoning

The court's reasoning centered on interpreting the “awareness” required under section 18(2) of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973. The key considerations included:

• Definition of Personal Injuries: Section 22(1) defines personal injuries to include any impairment of a person's mental condition, which encompasses recognized psychiatric illnesses.
• Commencement of Limitation Period: The limitation period begins when the pursuers become aware, actual or constructive, that:
  • The deceased suffered personal injuries attributable to the defendant's act or omission.
  • The defendant's conduct contributed to those injuries.
• Actual vs. Constructive Awareness: Actual awareness pertains to the pursuers personally knowing the facts, whereas constructive awareness relates to what a reasonable person would have known under the circumstances.
• Equitable Discretion: Under section 19A, the court can allow time-barred actions to proceed if it deems it equitable, considering factors such as the nature of the mistake, prejudice to the defendant, and availability of alternative remedies.

The court concluded that the Drouet family had actual awareness by April 12, 2016, of Emily's significantly impaired mental condition attributable to Milligan's behavior, thus triggering the limitation period. The evidence, including the family's interactions with Dr. Timothy Brow and the presentation of Emily's deteriorating mental state, substantiated this awareness.

Impact

This judgment has profound implications for future cases involving psychiatric injuries and the application of limitation periods. It clarifies that:

• Awareness of Impairment: Even without a formal medical diagnosis, awareness of a significant impairment to a person's mental condition attributable to another's conduct can trigger limitation periods.
• Timeliness of Claims: Families must be vigilant in recognizing signs of mental distress and connecting them to potential legal claims within the prescribed limitation periods.
• Equitable Relief: While the court can exercise discretion to allow time-barred claims, such relief is not to be expected in cases where procedural errors were not caused by the pursuers' actions and alternative remedies are unavailable or ineffective.

Moreover, this case underscores the importance of timely legal action and the potential consequences of procedural oversights in civil claims for personal injuries.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Limitation Periods

Limitation periods set deadlines within which legal claims must be filed. In Scottish law, under the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973, different periods apply depending on the nature of the claim.

Actual vs. Constructive Awareness

• Actual Awareness: The pursuer personally knows the essential facts that give rise to a legal claim.
• Constructive Awareness: The pursuer should have known the essential facts through reasonable diligence and investigation.

Personal Injuries

Defined broadly to include any decline in a person's physical or mental condition. In legal terms, it encapsulates not just physical harm but also recognized psychological conditions resulting from another's actions.

Section 19A - Equitable Discretion

A provision that allows courts to permit actions to proceed even if they are time-barred, based on fairness and the specific circumstances of the case.

Conclusion

The judgment in Fiona Drouet and others against Angus Milligan [2024] CSOH 32 provides critical clarity on the interpretation of limitation periods in cases involving psychiatric injuries leading to death. By affirming that awareness of a significant mental impairment attributable to another's conduct is sufficient to trigger the limitation period, the court has set a precedent that emphasizes the importance of timely legal recognition of such injuries.

This decision reinforces the necessity for claimants to be proactive in understanding and acting upon signs of mental distress linked to potentially actionable behavior. Simultaneously, it delineates the boundaries of equitable discretion, ensuring that procedural fairness is maintained without unduly extending legal timelines. As a result, future claims of a similar nature will likely be navigated with a clearer understanding of when limitation periods commence and the factors influencing the admissibility of time-barred actions.