OPINION OF LORD GILL in the cause ROBERT WILLIAM ROBERTSON, THOMAS ANDREW JAMIESON and IVOR MOFFAT Pursuers; against (First) THE BRAER CORPORATION; (Second) TREVOR WILLIAMS; (Third) ANTHONY JONES; (Fourth) MICHAEL HUDNER; and (Fifth) ASSURANCEFORENINGEN SKULD Defenders; and THE INTERNATIONAL OIL POLLUTION COMPENSATION FUND Minuter: ________________ |
14 January 1999
This is one of several of the Braer actions that have been raised by two or more pursuers in which the pursuers seek to substitute for themselves as individuals a partnership of which they are or were the partners.
The pursuers have enrolled a motion
"to allow the Closed Record to be opened up and amended in terms of the pursuers' Minute of Amendment ... and the defenders' and minuters' Answers thereto ... ; to find the pursuers liable to the defenders and the minuters in the expenses occasioned by the amendment, and of new to close the Record ... "
The action has been raised by Robert William Robertson, Thomas Andrew Jamieson and Ivor Moffat as individuals. One of the purposes of the proposed amendment is to substitute for the present pursuers;
"(First) Robert William Robertson, Thomas Andrew Jamieson and Ivor Moffat, a now dissolved partnership formerly having a place of business at Fairbanks, Hamnavoe, Burra, Shetland, and (Second) Robert William Robertson, residing at Fairbanks, Hamnavoe, Burra, Shetland; (Third) Thomas Andrew Jamieson, residing at 11 Altaness, Hamnavoe, Burra, Shetland; and (Fourth) Ivor Moffat, residing at Pine Grove, Aith, Bixter, Shetland, the whole surviving partners of the first pursuers as such partners and as individuals."
Counsel for the pursuers accept that the Minute of Amendment was lodged more than three years after the first emergence of the loss referred to on Record. This case therefore raises a question of prescription. Counsel agree that that question turns on the interpretation of section 9 of the Merchant Shipping (Oil Pollution) Act 1971. It is the question that was in issue in Gray v The Braer Corporation and Others, (29 December 1998, unreported). That case was at avizandum when I heard the present motion.
Counsel agree that on the present question this case is indistinguishable from Gray. They also agree that the present case raises no new point. At the hearing on the motion they adopted the submissions that they had made in Gray.
I have now given judgment in Gray in which I have refused a similar motion. For the reasons that I gave in that case, I consider that the claim of the partnership in the present case has prescribed. I shall refuse the motion.
OPINION OF LORD GILL in the cause ROBERT WILLIAM ROBERTSON, THOMAS ANDREW JAMIESON and IVOR MOFFAT Pursuers; against (First) THE BRAER CORPORATION; (Second) TREVOR WILLIAMS; (Third) ANTHONY JONES; (Fourth) MICHAEL HUDNER; and (Fifth) ASSURANCEFORENINGEN SKULD Defenders; and THE INTERNATIONAL OIL POLLUTION COMPENSATION FUND Minuter: ________________
Act: Gale, Q.C., A.R. Mackenzie Paull & Williamsons
Alt: Howie Henderson Boyd Jackson, W.S. Defender Tyre, Q.C. Morton Fraser Partnership, W.S. Minuter
14 January 1999 |