Clarifying Prescriptive Periods under the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973: Gordon & Ors v Campbell Riddell Breeze Paterson LLP
Introduction
The case of Linda Anne Gordon and Others v Campbell Riddell Breeze Paterson LLP ([2016] ScotCS CSIH_16) was adjudicated by the Scottish Court of Session on March 8, 2016. This judgment addresses pivotal issues surrounding the commencement of the prescriptive period for legal actions under the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973, particularly focusing on the interpretation of section 11(3) concerning latent and patent damages. The parties involved include the pursuers, Linda Anne Gordon and others, and the defenders, Campbell Riddell Breeze Paterson LLP, represented by their respective legal teams. The crux of the matter revolves around whether the defendants' alleged professional negligence in drafting ineffective notices to quit falls within the five-year prescriptive period.
Summary of the Judgment
The Court of Session upheld the decision of the Lord Ordinary, dismissing the pursuers' claim for damages against the defenders on the grounds of prescription. The judgment primarily hinged on the interpretation of section 11(3) of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973, which dictates when the five-year prescriptive period begins. The pursuers contended that they were unaware that the legal fees paid constituted a compensable loss caused by negligence until the Land Court decision in July 2008, thereby arguing that the prescriptive period commenced then. Conversely, the defenders argued that awareness of incurring legal fees was sufficient to trigger the commencement of the prescriptive period. The court agreed with the defenders, emphasizing that the pursuers were aware of the legal fees from the outset, and thus, the claim was time-barred.
Analysis
Precedents Cited
The judgment extensively references the Supreme Court case David T Morrison & Co Ltd (t/a Gael Home Interiors) v ICL Plastics Ltd (2014 SC (UKSC) 222), commonly referred to as Morrison. In Morrison, the Supreme Court clarified the interpretation of section 11(3), stating that the prescriptive period is triggered by the creditor's awareness of loss, injury, or damage, regardless of knowledge about the causative negligence. Additionally, the judgment refers to earlier cases such as Greater Glasgow Health Board v Baxter, Clark & Paul (1990 SC 237) and Dunlop v McGowans (1980 SC (HL) 73), which historically influenced the understanding of prescription periods and the distinction between latent and patent damages.
Legal Reasoning
The Court's legal reasoning centers on the objective interpretation of section 11(3). The majority opinion, aligning with Morrison, posits that the prescriptive period begins once the creditor is aware of the occurrence of loss, injury, or damage, independent of knowledge regarding its cause. In this case, the defenders' correspondence dated November 10, 2005, alerted the pursuers to potential issues with the solicitors' services, effectively notifying them of possible negligence. Consequently, the court held that the five-year prescriptive period commenced on the date of this letter, making the subsequent claim filed in May 2012 untimely.
The judgment underscores that the knowledge requirement under section 11(3) pertains solely to awareness of the loss itself, not the negligence causing it. This interpretation limits the scope of the statute to objective facts about the loss, thereby precluding subjective assessments of the cause's nature unless explicitly stated in the law.
Impact
This judgment reinforces the precedent set by Morrison, emphasizing that the prescriptive period for claims related to loss, injury, or damage begins upon awareness of the loss itself, not its underlying causes. This clarification narrows the scope for future litigants seeking to extend prescription periods based on delayed discovery of negligence. Legal practitioners must now ensure that claims are filed within the prescribed period once the loss is recognized, regardless of subsequent findings about its cause. Moreover, the decision highlights the challenges in distinguishing between latent and patent damage in financial claims, potentially leading to an increase in "hard cases" where the applicability of the prescriptive period is contentious.
Complex Concepts Simplified
Prescriptive Period
The prescriptive period refers to the maximum time after an event within which legal proceedings may be initiated. After this period, claims are generally barred.
Section 11(3) of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973
This section deals with postponement of the commencement of the prescriptive period if the creditor was unaware of the loss, injury, or damage caused by an act, neglect, or default.
Latent vs. Patent Damage
Latent damage refers to harm that is not immediately apparent, while patent damage is obvious and readily detectable.
Conclusion
The Gordon & Ors v Campbell Riddell Breeze Paterson LLP judgment serves as a critical affirmation of the Supreme Court's interpretation in Morrison, delineating the boundaries of the prescriptive period under the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973. By establishing that awareness of loss, independent of its causation, triggers the commencement of the five-year period, the court provides clarity and certainty for future cases. Legal practitioners must now focus on the timing of loss recognition when advising clients on the viability of claims. This decision underscores the importance of timely legal action and the need for clear communication between clients and their solicitors to prevent claims from becoming time-barred.
Comments