Stephen Anthony Quinn And Others Against Wright’s Insulations Limited
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judge | Lady Carmichael |
| Neutral Citation | [2020] CSOH 21 |
| Docket Number | PD483/18 |
| Date | 27 February 2020 |
| Court | Court of Session |
| Published date | 27 February 2020 |
OUTER HOUSE, COURT OF SESSION
[2020] CSOH 21
PD483/18
OPINION OF LADY CARMICHAEL
In the cause
STEPHEN ANTHONY QUINN AND OTHERS
Pursuers
against
WRIGHT’S INSULATIONS LIMITED
Defender
Pursuers: Stuart QC and Shields Solicitor Advocate; Thompsons
Defender: Mackenzie QC; Clyde & Co (Scotland) LLP
27 February 2020
Introduction
[1] This case came before me as a preliminary proof under section 19A of the
Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973. Francis Joseph Quinn (“the deceased”)
received a diagnosis of pleural plaques in 1993 or, at latest 1994. He sought advice in
relation to pleural plaques in 2012. He developed mesothelioma. The onset of his
symptoms of mesothelioma was in about January or February 2016. He died of malignant
mesothelioma on 11 May 2017. The present action is at the instance of his executors
nominate and certain relatives. The summons was served on 13 December 2018.
2
[2] The pursuers accept that their claims are time-barred because of the operation of
sections 17(2)(b) and 18(4) of the 1973 Act, having regard to the five judge decision of the
Inner House in Aitchison v Glasgow City Council 2010 SC 411. They contend that in the
circumstances of this case the court ought to exercise its discretion to allow the claim to
proceed.
[3] The defenders do not contend that they are prejudiced in the investigation of the
claim by reason of the lapse of time. They accept that they employed the deceased in tax
years 1964/65 and 1965/66. It is a matter of agreement that if the court were to exercise its
discretion under section 19A the defenders would not dispute that the deceased was
negligently exposed to asbestos. They would not in that event dispute that that exposure
materially increased the risk that he would develop mesothelioma.
Events between 1993 and 2012
[4] The evidence in relation to this derives from the agreement between the parties, and
the content of agreed medical records. It was agreed that the medical records should be
“taken as evidence of their contents”. Parties confirmed in oral submissions that there was
no issue as to the accuracy of the entries in those records. If there was a note that the
deceased had said something, then I should proceed on the basis that he had said it.
[5] On 11 or 12 November 1993 (the date in the GP records is unclear), the deceased
attended his general practitioner (“GP”) complaining of tiredness. He had made earlier
reports of tiredness in the same year. On 12 November 1993 the deceased underwent a chest
X-ray. It demonstrated bilateral basal pleural calcification, consistent with previous asbestos
exposure, but disclosed no evidence of active lung disease.
To continue reading
Request your trial