A. v. N. [2008] CSOH 165

Debate:- In this action the pursuer sought damages for a period of sexual abuse from when she was a child until the age of thirty by the defender. The abuse ended in 1997 and the pursuer's loss was known in 1998. The triennium expired in 2001 with this action raised three years later. At debate the defenders moved the court to dismiss the action on the grounds that the action had time barred. It was submitted on behalf of the defender that the case was time barred and so if it now proceeded he would have lost an unanswerable defence. There was no behaviour on his part which could be criticised and he maintained his denial of any breach of duty to the pursuer. He had twice been acquitted in the criminal court and he was not insured and would have to fund his defence to the action from his own resources. Further, it was submitted that the addresses of the alleged abuse may have changed internally and the pursuer's mother was now dead and two other witnesses could not be traced. Here the court considered the limitations under section 17 of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 and whether the pursuer satisfied the court under the exception contained under section 19A.