NEWS: Successful defence on time bar by Andrew Webster: Minshull v Advocate General for Scotland

Posted: February 28, 2008

Successful defence on time bar by Murray Stable advocate Andrew Webster: Minshull v Advocate General for Scotland 2008 CSOH 38

Andrew Webster of the Murray Stable has been successful on behalf of the Ministry of Defence in the defence of a claim for damages for negligent exposure to chemicals.  In Minshull v Advocate General for Scotland the defender representing the Ministry of Defence argued time bar in respect of alleged negligent exposure to Coolanol 25R, a chemical used in the maintenance of Skyshadow electronic counter measure equipment.  The pursuer’s credibility and reliability were successfully undermined during the course of a preliminary proof.  The court also considered the onus of proof and the sufficiency of evidence required to defer the commencement of the triennium under s.17(2)(b)(i) and (ii) of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973, particularly when the pursuer could reasonably have become aware that his injuries were attributable in whole or part to an act or omission on the part of the Ministry.  The pursuer’s attempt to rely on section 19 A of the 1973 Act was also rejected.

To read the full Opinion of Lord Macphail please click on the following link: http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2008CSOH38.html

Mr Webster previously appeared in Carnegie v Lord Advocate 2001 SC 802 which considered issues of time bar.  He has been a standing junior counsel to the Ministry of Defence since 1997.