David Johnston, PRESCRIPTION AND LIMITATION Edinburgh: W Green & Son (www.wgreen.co.uk), Scottish Universities Law Institute, 2nd edn, 2012. liii + 487 pp. ISBN 9780414018389. £155.

Published date01 September 2013
Date01 September 2013
Pages439-441
DOI10.3366/elr.2013.0178
AuthorD L Carey Miller

An established definitive text brought up to date and enhanced by the author's developed insights hardly needs to be reviewed. That said, it is especially true of Scots law that prescription, positive and negative, connects with much in the development of private law. As a certain barometer of legal development and activity the subject has a lot to tell in the thirteen year period since the first edition of this excellent book. That period might have been greater; in the preface David Johnston, acknowledging the contribution of a research assistant (Giles Reid), observes that without assistance identifying where and why updating was needed “this edition would have taken some years longer”.

A feature of the work is its depth in dealing with the diverse areas which the subject engages with. An example can be given from the Schedule 1 list of obligations affected by the five-year prescription under section 6. Observing that the critical issue is whether an obligation can be accommodated within the range of situations provided for in the schedule, the author notes that certain statutory obligations may prescribe as obligations to make reparation (Sch 1, para 1(d) to the 1973 Act). The question whether irritancy is included is discussed in this context, the point having been raised in a case decided after the first edition of Prescription and Limitation (Glasgow City Council v Morrison Developments Ltd 2003 SLT 263). Because a landlord's power to irritate has no correlative obligation on the part of the tenant and section 6 is concerned with the prescription of obligations, the conclusion is negative. That however, it is noted, is not the end of the matter. Irritancy is only a remedy and the section is concerned with the prescription of obligations. The tenant's obligation arising from breach of contract does prescribe and once it has the landlord has no basis under which to enforce his correlative right. The loss of that right necessarily precludes resort to the remedy of irritancy. The concise and lucid treatment of this particular issue is a feature of the entire work.

Another section 6 issue illustrates the valuable critical perspective aspect of the work. In the 2012 Inner House decision in Docherty v Scottish Ministers (2012 SC 150) it was held that a former prisoner's damages claim for breach of the ECHR arising from prison conditions did not prescribe under the five-year prescription as an obligation to make reparation. Two reasons were held...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT