Introduction

The case of Martin McGowan v. Springfield Properties Plc ([2024] CSIH 31) adjudicated by the Scottish Court of Session's Second Division, Inner House, presents significant developments in the realms of prescriptive periods and the burden of proof concerning wrongful interim interdicts. Mr. McGowan, a former contractor for Springfield Properties, alleged that he was wrongfully subjected to an interim interdict imposed by Springfield to restrain him from making further claims about purported unsafe practices within the company. Springfield sought damages for the interdict, claiming it had been in effect for over five years—a period under which claims could become time-barred under the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973. The core issues revolved around the commencement of the prescriptive period and the implications of recalling an interim interdict on its wrongfulness.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court addressed two principal questions:

1. Does the five-year negative prescriptive period for damages claims based on a wrongful interim interdict commence from the date the order was granted or from when it was recalled?
2. When does the recall of an interim interdict constitute conclusive evidence of its wrongfulness, particularly regarding the necessity of a judicial determination on its merits?

Upon deliberation, the Court held that:

• The prescriptive period begins upon the recall of the interim interdict, not when it was initially granted.
• In the absence of a judicial determination addressing the merits of the interdict, the burden remains on the claimant to prove its wrongful nature.

Consequently, the Court upheld Springfield's cross-appeal concerning the second question but refused the appeal against the commencement of the prescriptive period.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment references several pivotal cases that shape the court’s reasoning:

• Johnston v Scottish Ministers (2006 SCLR 5): This case was distinguished from the present matter, emphasizing that not all recalls of interdicts automatically render them wrongful.
• Mirza v Salim (2015 SC 31): Insights from Lady Dorrian and Lord McGhie in this case clarified that a recall following a judicial determination can conclusively indicate wrongfulness.
• Aird Geomatics Ltd v Stevenson (2015 SLT 329): Lord Pentland’s decision in this case was crucial in rejecting the notion that a recall is conclusive only if accompanied by an examination of the facts.

Additionally, authoritative texts such as Scott Robinson, Interdict and Walker, Civil Remedies were cited to elucidate the interplay between interdicts and prescription periods.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s analysis meticulously dissected the nature of interim interdicts under Section 11(2) of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973, characterizing such interdicts as "continuing acts." This interpretation implies that the prescriptive period is not static from the date of grant but is dynamically linked to the duration of the interdict’s existence.

On the second issue, the absence of a judicial determination addressing the merits of the interdict meant that the mere recall, especially through a consensual joint minute, did not automatically signify wrongfulness. This nuanced stance underscores the importance of judicial involvement in affirming the wrongful nature of such orders.

Impact

The decision delineates clear boundaries on how prescriptive periods are calculated concerning interim interdicts, directly impacting future litigation strategies surrounding wrongful interdicts. By establishing that the prescriptive period commences upon recall, claimants are afforded a potentially extended window to seek redress, provided the interdict remains in effect beyond five years.

Furthermore, by affirming that a judicial determination is often necessary to conclusively establish wrongfulness upon recall, the judgment imposes a heightened evidentiary burden on claimants. This necessitates a more robust presentation of facts and legal arguments in instances where interdicts are recalled without a substantive judicial review.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Interim Interdict

An interim interdict is a temporary court order that restrains a party from performing certain actions pending a fuller hearing on the matter. In this case, it prevented Mr. McGowan from making certain allegations against Springfield Properties.

Prescriptive Period

The prescriptive period refers to the maximum time after an event within which legal proceedings may be initiated. Under the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973, claims for damages must be filed within five years.

Decree of Absolvitor

A decree of absolvitor is a final court decision that exonerates a party from the claims made against them. Here, Mr. McGowan was granted such a decree, indicating that the court found no liability on his part.