DOCSLIB.ORG

Questions Q1 Should a Period of Positive Prescription for Corporeal Moveables Be Introduced? Please Give Reasons

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Questions Q1 Should a Period of Positive Prescription for Corporeal Moveables Be Introduced? Please Give Reasons Questions Q1 Should a period of positive prescription for corporeal moveables be introduced? Please give reasons. Yes Comments We are strongly in favour of the amendment of the law to introduce a period of positive prescription for corporeal moveables, and we wholeheartedly welcome the Government’s willingness to engage with this matter. The substance of the law relating to prescription of ownership of moveables is currently unclear and debated among lawyers. We hope that Parliament will act to remove that uncertainty, and secure existing rights of ownership in moveables that might be open to challenge in the courts. As we see it provision for positive prescription will be beneficial in functioning together with the existing common law presumption that the possessor of a moveable thing is owner (the presumption). The presumption is an important practical device which protects a possessor (A) on the basis that another party (B) will only succeed in an action to recover possession if he/she can prove i/ ownership and ii/ that his/her possession was lost on some basis inconsistent with transfer (see Reid, Property, paras 130 and 148). In a recent research paper David Carey Miller argued that the role of the presumption is more significant than is commonly acknowledged (see “The Presumption Arising from Possession of Corporeal Moveable Property: Questioning Received Wisdom” in Simpson, Styles, West and Wilson (eds) Essays in Memory of Angelo Forte (forthcoming, Aberdeen University Press). The utility of the proposed introduction of a statutory rule of positive prescription is twofold. First, it will simply serve to establish who owns a thing in many cases where this has become unclear through long passage of time. No-one doubts this benefit. Second, a rule of positive prescription will remove the uncertainty which exists at present regarding the effect of negative prescription, in terms of s.8 of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973, applying in a given case. We question whether the position of the law is stated correctly in para 2.02 of the Consultation paper (July 2015) but acknowledge that to be a position subscribed to by many other Scottish property law experts. To explain, Carey Miller argues that, in the situation concerned, the possessor who successfully invokes s.8 against a claimant to ownership is protected by the presumption. Any assertion of ownership by the Crown would be unsuccessful because the Crown would arguably not be able to establish the two required elements to rebut the presumption. Yet even though we subscribe to this position (see also Carey Miller’s argument in “Lawyer for All Time”, Burrows, Johnston and Zimmermann (eds) Judge and Jurist: Essays in Memory of Lord Rodger of Earlsferry (2013) 389-390) we fully agree that the proposed introduction of positive prescription would remove the dubiety which follows from two different interpretations of the existing law. In other words, introducing acquisitive prescription of moveables would resolve the debate mentioned and bring certainty and clarity to this area of the law. The proposed reform will be positive in leaving the presumption to protect a good faith possessor of less than 20 years but clarifying the position of entitlement after that period has passed. It may be noted that the presumption and the proposed new law would be largely consistent regarding stolen or looted property. The presumption is always rebuttable by an owner who can show a loss of possession through theft or looting; the new law will not give a right in circumstances of knowledge of the taint of theft or looting and such knowledge may be inferred in the circumstances of a failure of due diligence (Draft Bill s.1(1)(c) and s.1(2)(d)). Q2 Is a 20 year period suitable for positive prescription for corporeal moveables? Please give reasons. Yes Comments At face value 20 years may seem long for moveable property but by far the greater proportion of moveable things depreciate so rapidly that possible acquisition by prescription is irrelevant. In practice any positive prescription law will be primarily applicable to appreciating property. Given this inevitable focus a relatively long period is appropriate because an owner should not be too readily deprived of appreciating assets such as antiques or cultural property. Q3 Are any further provisions on prescription needed in this proposed Bill to reflect that objects might have been looted during the Nazi period or during other periods in history when injustice occurred as a consequence of the rule of law not being applied properly? If so what provisions are needed? Yes Comments It may be preferable to strengthen the relevant provisions by the revision of the wording of s.1(1)(c) and s.1(2)(d). It is always difficult to prove a negative, and the current s.1(1)(c) and s.1(2)(d) might be read as requiring just that. It is said that A, who believes he is owner of property, may only acquire ownership if “A has not been negligent in having so believed throughout that period”. That might be read as requiring A to prove that he had not been negligent in order to acquire ownership. To avoid this problem the wording could be rephrased as follows: s.1(1)(c) – A, who believes he is owner, may acquire ownership if “A cannot be shown to have been negligent in having so believed throughout that period.” The provision in s.1(2)(d) could be amended in a similar way – “S cannot be shown to have been negligent in having so believed throughout that remainder.” That would place the onus of proving negligence on one asserting that A has not acquired ownership. Q4 Should time outwith Scotland be counted toward the total time period needed for positive prescription for corporeal moveable property? Please explain your answer. Yes Comments This is appropriate because the question of a period of possession abroad will only arise in the circumstances of a Scottish court having jurisdiction. In that event, it should not matter if part of the total period of possession involves a spell furth of Scotland. There should not be any difference between the position of the possessor of a watch who takes it with him on a 3-year foreign posting and that of the possessor of a clock who leaves it in his Aberdeen residence during a similar period of absence abroad. Q5 Should the proposed 3 year transition period be used? Please give reasons for your answer. Yes Comments On the view of the operation of s.8 of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 referred to in the comment to Q1 above the issue is not a significant one because the proposed reform is a matter of clarification rather than substantive change. However, on the view subscribed to in the Consultation paper, there is a need for a transition period and a 3-year one seems reasonable. Q6a Should holders of lent or deposited property acquire ownership after 50 years? Yes Comments This proposal is limited to the situation of property loaned or deposited. In the circumstances of a dispute as to whether ownership had been acquired in terms of the provision the claimant would necessarily have to establish the act of loan or deposit more than 50 years previously. The provision would not apply where there is no record or knowledge of the basis under which possession or custody was obtained. Nor could the general 20 year prescription under s.1 apply unless the circumstances were compatible with a belief of ownership by the holder (s.1(1)(b)(i)&(ii)). Despite the provision’s apparent limited applicability it would appear to serve a potential purpose where loan or deposit took place. In this regard it is relevant that the presumption protecting possession (referred to in the comment to Q1 above) would be rebuttable by an owner able to show that possession was parted with on the basis of loan or deposit even if the act occurred more than 50 years previously. Q6b Should there be a special rule here for cultural items and, if so, how should “cultural items” be defined? No Comments An important aim of this proposed provision is to contribute to the position of museums and galleries in respect of unclaimed items loaned or deposited more than 50 years previously. The scope of the provision is limited; any special additional limitation in respect of ‘cultural property’ would risk rendering the provision meaningless in terms of the aim of assisting museums and galleries. Q7 Do you believe that the protections – time period, expectation of diligence in tracing owners etc. are sufficient? If not, what would you like to see introduced? Yes Comments Any further protection would also risk rendering the provision meaningless. Q8 Should the proposals in the draft Bill on how a finder may acquire abandoned property be enacted? Please give reasons for your answer. No Comments There is no need to change the present law which works well in practice. The formal vesting of previously owned but, at present, apparently ownerless things in the Crown is no more than a device applied to serve policy interests in certain areas of modern law. In principle waste formally vests in the Crown insofar as it is property. But, of course, this is an irrelevant fact because the issue with waste is how it is dealt with and this is a matter of national and local government policy and regulation. The proposed change has implications for two areas: the position regarding lost/abandoned property and that of finds of ‘treasure’ in the sense of things of historic or archaeological significance.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • JUDGMENT AXA General Insurance Limited and Others (Appellants)
    Michaelmas Term [2011] UKSC 46 On appeal from: [2011] CSIH 31 JUDGMENT AXA General Insurance Limited and others (Appellants) v The Lord Advocate and others (Respondents) (Scotland) before Lord Hope, Deputy President Lord Brown Lord Mance Lord Kerr Lord Clarke Lord Dyson Lord Reed JUDGMENT GIVEN ON 12 October 2011 Heard on 13, 14 and 15 June 2011 Appellant 1st Respondent Richard Keen QC Alan Dewar QC Jane Munro James Mure QC (Instructed by Brodies (Instructed by Scottish LLP) Government Legal Directorate Litigation Division) 2nd Respondent 3rd-10th Respondents Ruth Crawford QC Aidan O’Neill QC John MacGregor Chris Pirie (Instructed by Office of (Instructed by Thompsons the Solicitor to the Solicitors Glasgow Advocate General for Scotland) Scotland Intervener (First Minister Intervener (Attorney of Wales) General for Northern Ireland) Theodore Huckle QC John F Larkin QC Clive Lewis QC Donal Sayers BL (Instructed by Welsh (Instructed by Solicitors Assembly Government for the Attorney General Legal Services for Northern Ireland) Department, Cardiff) Intervener (Friends of the Intervener (Department of Earth Scotland Ltd) Finance and Personnel (Northern Ireland)) Simon Collins Paul Maguire QC Paul McLaughlin BL (Instructed by Patrick (Instructed by Campbell & Co Solicitors) Departmental Solicitor’s Office) LORD HOPE 1. The appellants are insurance companies, whose business includes the writing of employers’ liability insurance policies. They undertake to indemnify the employer in respect of any liability incurred by it for harm or injury arising out of the employer’s negligence. They have brought these proceedings to challenge the lawfulness of an Act of the Scottish Parliament which was passed on 11 March 2009, received the Royal Assent on 17 April 2009 and came into force on 17 June 2009.
    [Show full text]
  • Common Law Fraud Liability to Account for It to the Owner
    FRAUD FACTS Issue 17 March 2014 (3rd edition) INFORMATION FOR ORGANISATIONS Fraud in Scotland Fraud does not respect boundaries. Fraudsters use the same tactics and deceptions, and cause the same harm throughout the UK. However, the way in which the crimes are defined, investigated and prosecuted can depend on whether the fraud took place in Scotland or England and Wales. Therefore it is important for Scottish and UK-wide businesses to understand the differences that exist. What is a ‘Scottish fraud’? Embezzlement Overview of enforcement Embezzlement is the felonious appropriation This factsheet focuses on criminal fraud. There are many interested parties involved in of property without the consent of the owner In Scotland criminal fraud is mainly dealt the detection, investigation and prosecution with under the common law and a number where the appropriation is by a person who of statutory offences. The main fraud offences has received a limited ownership of the of fraud in Scotland, including: in Scotland are: property, subject to restoration at a future • Police Service of Scotland time, or possession of property subject to • common law fraud liability to account for it to the owner. • Financial Conduct Authority • uttering There is an element of breach of trust in • Trading Standards • embezzlement embezzlement making it more serious than • Department for Work and Pensions • statutory frauds. simple theft. In most cases embezzlement involves the appropriation of money. • Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. It is important to note that the Fraud Act 2006 does not apply in Scotland (apart from Statutory frauds s10(1) which increases the maximum In addition there are a wide range of statutory Investigating fraud custodial sentence for fraudulent trading to offences which are closely related to the 10 years).
    [Show full text]
  • Bankruptcy and Diligence Etc. (Scotland) Act 2007 (Asp 3)
    Bankruptcy and Diligence etc. (Scotland) Act 2007 (asp 3) Bankruptcy and Diligence etc. (Scotland) Act 2007 2007 asp 3 CONTENTS Section PART 1 BANKRUPTCY Duration of bankruptcy 1 Discharge of debtor Bankruptcy restrictions orders and undertakings 2 Bankruptcy restrictions orders and undertakings Effect of bankruptcy restrictions orders and undertakings 3 Disqualification from being appointed as receiver 4 Disqualification for nomination, election and holding office as member of local authority 5 Orders relating to disqualification The trustee in the sequestration 6 Amalgamation of offices of interim trustee and permanent trustee 7 Repeal of trustee’s residence requirement 8 Duties of trustee 9 Grounds for resignation or removal of trustee 10 Termination of interim trustee’s functions 11 Statutory meeting and election of trustee 12 Replacement of trustee acting in more than one sequestration 13 Requirement to hold money in interest bearing account Debtor applications 14 Debtor applications 15 Debtor applications by low income, low asset debtors Jurisdiction 16 Sequestration proceedings to be competent only before sheriff ii Bankruptcy and Diligence etc. (Scotland) Act 2007 (asp 3) Vesting of estate and dealings of debtor 17 Vesting of estate and dealings of debtor Income received by debtor after sequestration 18 Income received by debtor after sequestration Debtor’s home and other heritable property 19 Debtor’s home and other heritable property Protected trust deeds 20 Modification of provisions relating to protected trust deeds Modification
    [Show full text]
  • Virginia Model Jury Instructions – Criminal
    Virginia Model Jury Instructions – Criminal Release 20, September 2019 NOTICE TO USERS: THE FOLLOWING SET OF UNANNOTATED MODEL JURY INSTRUCTIONS ARE BEING MADE AVAILABLE WITH THE PERMISSION OF THE PUBLISHER, MATTHEW BENDER & COMPANY, INC. PLEASE NOTE THAT THE FULL ANNOTATED VERSION OF THESE MODEL JURY INSTRUCTIONS IS AVAILABLE FOR PURCHASE FROM MATTHEW BENDER® BY WAY OF THE FOLLOWING LINK: https://store.lexisnexis.com/categories/area-of-practice/criminal-law-procedure- 161/virginia-model-jury-instructions-criminal-skuusSku6572 Matthew Bender is a registered trademark of Matthew Bender & Company, Inc. Instruction No. 2.050 Preliminary Instructions to Jury Members of the jury, the order of the trial of this case will be in four stages: 1. Opening statements 2. Presentation of the evidence 3. Instructions of law 4. Final argument After the conclusion of final argument, I will instruct you concerning your deliberations. You will then go to your room, select a foreperson, deliberate, and arrive at your verdict. Opening Statements First, the Commonwealth's attorney may make an opening statement outlining his or her case. Then the defendant's attorney also may make an opening statement. Neither side is required to do so. Presentation of the Evidence [Second, following the opening statements, the Commonwealth will introduce evidence, after which the defendant then has the right to introduce evidence (but is not required to do so). Rebuttal evidence may then be introduced if appropriate.] [Second, following the opening statements, the evidence will be presented.] Instructions of Law Third, at the conclusion of all evidence, I will instruct you on the law which is to be applied to this case.
    [Show full text]
  • Prescription and the Limitation of Actions: Report on Personal Injuries Actions and Private International Law Questions
    Scottish Law Commission (SCOT. LAW COM. No. 74) PRESCRIPTION AND THE LIMITATION OF ACTIONS REPORT ON PERSONAL INJURIES ACTIONS AND PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW QUESTIONS Laid before Parliament by the Lord Advocate under section 3(2) of the Law CommissionsAct 1965 Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 9th February, 1983 EDINBURGH HER MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE £4.80 The Scottish Law Commission was set up by sectian 2 of the Law Commissions Act 1965 for the purpose of promoting the reform of the law of Scotland. The Commissioners are: The Honourable Lord Maxwell, Chairman, Mr. R. D. D. Bertram, W.S., Dr. E. M. Clive, Mr. J. Murray, Q.C., Sheriff C. G. B. Nicholson, Q.C. The Secretary of the Commission is Mr. R. Eadie. Its offices are at 140 Causewayside, Edinburgh EH9 1PR. ISBN 0 10 215383 3 SCOTTISH LAW COMMISSION Item 3 of the First Programme PRESCRIPTION AND THE LIMITATION OF ACTIONS PERSONAL INJURIES ACTIONS AND PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW QUESTIONS To: The Right Honourable the Lord Mackay of Clashfern, Q.C., Her Majesty's Advocate We have the honour to submit our Report on (1) Personal Injuries Actions, and (2) Private International Law Questions (Signed) PETER MAXWELL, Chairman R. D. D. BERTRAM E. M. CLIVE JOHN MURRAY C. G. B. NICHOLSON R. EADIE, Secretary 16th November 1982 CONTENTS Part Paragraph Page I INTRODUCTION . 1.1 1 Purpose of the law . 1.5 3 History of the law . 1.6 3 THE LONG NEGATIVE PRESCRIPTION . 2.1 6 THE SHORT LIMITATION PERIOD . 3.1 9 The date of commencement The date of injury .
    [Show full text]
  • Prescription (Scotland) Bill (SP Bill 26) As Introduced in the Scottish Parliament on 8 February 2018
    This document relates to the Prescription (Scotland) Bill (SP Bill 26) as introduced in the Scottish Parliament on 8 February 2018 PRESCRIPTION (SCOTLAND) BILL —————————— POLICY MEMORANDUM INTRODUCTION 1. As required under Rule 9.3.3 of the Parliament‘s Standing Orders, this Policy Memorandum is published to accompany the Prescription (Scotland) Bill introduced in the Scottish Parliament on 8 February 2018. 2. The following other accompanying documents are published separately: Explanatory Notes (SP Bill 26–EN); a Financial Memorandum (SP Bill 26–FM); statements on legislative competence by the Presiding Officer and the Scottish Government (SP Bill 26–LC). 3. This Policy Memorandum has been prepared by the Scottish Government to set out the Government‘s policy behind the Bill. It does not form part of the Bill and has not been endorsed by the Parliament. POLICY OBJECTIVES OF THE BILL 4. The doctrine of prescription serves a vital function in the civil justice system. Negative prescription sets time-limits for when obligations (and rights), such as obligations under a contract, are extinguished. The policy objective of the Bill is to change the law of negative prescription to address certain issues which have caused or may cause difficulty in practice. These changes are designed to increase clarity, certainty and fairness as well as promote a more efficient use of resources, such as pursuers being less likely to have to raise court proceedings to preserve a right, and reduce costs for those involved in litigation and insurance. 5. The Bill makes a number of amendments to the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 (‗the 1973 Act‘).
    [Show full text]
  • The Positive Prescription of Servitudes in Scots Law
    This thesis has been submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for a postgraduate degree (e.g. PhD, MPhil, DClinPsychol) at the University of Edinburgh. Please note the following terms and conditions of use: This work is protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights, which are retained by the thesis author, unless otherwise stated. A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge. This thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the author. The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the author. When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given. The Positive Prescription of Servitudes in Scots Law Alasdair SS Peterson Presented for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of Edinburgh 2016 Abstract This thesis examines the establishment of servitudes by positive prescription in Scots law, with particular reference to the doctrine’s conceptual development and the nature of possession required under section 3 of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973. The thesis is divided into three main parts. The first provides a historical account of the law of positive prescription as applied to servitudes from the 17th century to the 20th century, culminating in its statutory expression in section 3(1) and (2) of the 1973 Act. The second considers what the 1973 Act means when it says that a servitude must be “possessed” for the prescriptive period.
    [Show full text]
  • Registers of Scotland Keeper-Induced Registration
    REGISTERS OF SCOTLAND KEEPER-INDUCED REGISTRATION CONSULTATION DOCUMENT October 2015 © Crown copyright 2014 KEEPER-INDUCED REGISTRATION CONSULTATION OCTOBER 2015 Purpose 1. In May 2014, the Keeper of the Registers of Scotland was invited by Scottish Ministers to complete the Land Register of Scotland in 10 years. There followed a public consultation (the 2014 consultation) by Scottish Ministers on how the statutory levers in the Land Registration etc. (Scotland) Act 2012 (the 2012 Act) could be used to enable that target to be met. There was general agreement to the suggestion in the consultation that the statutory powers for what is known as ‘keeper-induced registration’ (KIR) should be piloted to inform its use and that a further consultation be held on the detailed approach to, and strategy for, KIR. Those matters are the focus of this consultation document. A glossary of terms is available on our website at https://www.ros.gov.uk/KIRconsultation Completing the land register 2. The Land Registration (Scotland) Act 1979 (the 1979 Act) provided for the establishment of a land register under the management and control of the keeper. This is a transparent, plans-based, public register of rights in land. From 1981, land registration began to replace the recording of deeds in the General Register of Sasines and became fully operational in all areas of Scotland in 2003. The system of land registration underwent significant transformation in December 2014 when the main provisions of the Land Registration etc. (Scotland) Act 2012 were brought into force, effectively superseding the 1979 Act. The land register involves the creation of a title sheet that sets out the details of ownership of the property, any securities or other charges over it, any rights or title conditions, and also a depiction of the legal extent of the property through mapping of the legal boundaries on the Ordnance Survey (OS) based cadastral map (the cadastral map is a map of Scotland on which the legal boundaries, and other features, of individual registered properties are shown).
    [Show full text]
  • Drugs Investigation
    NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED Drugs Investigation Standard Operating Procedure Notice: This document has been made available through the Police Service of Scotland Freedom of Information Publication Scheme. It should not be utilised as guidance or instruction by any police officer or employee as it may have been redacted due to legal exemptions Owning Department: Specialist Crime Division Version Number: 3.00 (Publication Scheme) Date Published: 25/01/2018 NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED Version 3.00 (Publication Scheme) NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED Compliance Record Equality and Human Rights Impact Assessment (EqHRIA) 19/01/2018 Date Completed / Reviewed: Information Management Compliant: Yes Health and Safety Compliant: Yes Publication Scheme Compliant: Yes Version Control Table Version History of Amendments Approval Date 1.00 Initial Approved Version 26/03/2013 1.02 Introduction of Section 7 relating to the drug Khat 20/06/2014 Amendment made to Appendix ‘E’ due to an error in 2.00 16/09/2015 process Full cyclical review ensuring compliance with Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2016; updated formatting standards applied and removal of geographical 3.00 appendices. Previous sections entitled ‘Safe 19/01/2018 Management of Controlled Drugs & Inspection of Pharmacists’; ‘Khat’; and ‘Presumptive Testing’ removed from the SOP and new section 13 added. NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED Version 3.00 (Publication Scheme) 2 NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED Contents 1. Purpose 2. Section 23 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 3. Section 24 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 4. Obstruction 5. Intimate and Internal Searches 6. Cannabis Cultivations 7. Suspected Drugs Labs 8. Drug Search Warrants 9. Prison – Recovery of Drugs 10.
    [Show full text]
  • Laura Thomson | Arnot Manderson Advocates
    [email protected] 0131 260 5824 Year of Call LAURA THOMSON 2014 Devil Masters Ruth Charteris QC Ruth Innes QC Morag Ross QC Thomas L Ross QC Practice Profile Since calling to the Bar, Laura has established and maintained a busy and varied civil practice, centering on personal injury and professional negligence claims. She is regularly instructed in fatal cases and claims arising from catastrophic injuries, and actions which have as their subject matter clinical negligence, sexual abuse, harassment, industrial disease, employers' liability and road traffic accidents. Laura has recently been appointed as Junior Counsel to the Sheku Bayoh Public Inquiry. Laura is a Standing Junior to the Scottish Government and in that capacity has experience of public law. She has represented the Scottish Ministers in several recent appeals to the Land Court. Laura also has an interest in professional disciplinary work, and has represented clients before the disciplinary committees of the Nursing and Midwifery Council and the Architects Registration Board. From 2009-2012, Laura held the office of Advocate Depute. In this role, she prosecuted (as lead Counsel) many high-profile, difficult and anxious cases before the High Court of Justiciary. These included murder, culpable homicide, armed robbery, causing death by dangerous driving, rape, and the sexual abuse of children. Laura has extensive experience of preparing and presenting cases which are both factually and legally complex, and in which expert evidence has been led. Laura's appointment as an Advocate Depute followed a long and successful career in the Crown Office, during which time she held a number of specialised legal posts, including the investigation of sudden, suspicious and unexpected deaths and the conduct of Fatal Accident Inquiries; precognoscing and indicting cases for trial in the High Court; and international co-operation in the investigation and prosecution of crime.
    [Show full text]
  • SHERIFF APPEAL COURT 2020 SAC (Civ) 7 GLW-CA30-19 Sheriff
    SHERIFF APPEAL COURT 2020 SAC (Civ) 7 GLW-CA30-19 Sheriff Principal C D Turnbull Appeal Sheriff A M Cubie Appeal Sheriff N McFadyen CBE OPINION OF THE COURT delivered by SHERIFF PRINCIPAL C D TURNBULL in appeal by WPH DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED Pursuer and Respondent against YOUNG & GAULT LLP (IN LIQUIDATION) Defender and Appellant Defender and Appellant: Manson, advocate; DWF LLP Pursuer and Respondent: J M Conn, solicitor; Mitchells Roberton 4 August 2020 Introduction [1] The pursuer and respondent appointed the defender and appellant to provide architectural services in relation to a proposed residential development in Newton Mearns, to the south of Glasgow. The pursuer and respondent averred that the defender and appellant’s drawings were erroneous in that they (a) incorrectly identified the boundaries of the development whereby boundary walls were constructed on land which the pursuer and 2 respondent did not own; and (b) erroneously depicted the extent of the individual residential sale plots. [2] The present action commenced on 21 November 2018. The injuria relied upon by the pursuer and respondent comprises two discrete wrongful acts. The first relates to the drawings which depicted the boundaries of the development and is averred to have taken place on 8 November 2012 and to have been repeated thereafter. The second relates to the drawings which depicted the individual residential sale plots and is averred to have taken place “in or around autumn 2013”. The sheriff’s decision [3] The sole question debated before the sheriff was whether or not the obligations founded upon by the pursuer and respondent had been extinguished by the operation of the short negative prescription provided for by section 6(1) of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 (“the 1973 Act”).
    [Show full text]
  • Rethinking Theft Crimes in Virginia
    University of Richmond UR Scholarship Repository Law Faculty Publications School of Law 2003 Rethinking Theftr C imes in Virginia John G. Douglass University of Richmond, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.richmond.edu/law-faculty-publications Part of the State and Local Government Law Commons Recommended Citation John G. Douglass, Rethinking Theft rC imes in Virginia, 38 U. Rich. L. Rev. 13 (2003). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law at UR Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Law Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of UR Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ESSAY RETHINKING THEFT CRIMES IN VIRGINIA John G. Douglass* "History has its own logic. m I. INTRODUCTION When it comes to the law of theft, our English ancestors did us no favors. They left us the separate crimes of larceny, embezzle­ ment, and false pretenses. They drew a thin line between larceny and embezzlement, a line that can shift depending upon the mo­ ment in time a thief decides to steal.2 They distinguished larceny from false pretense based on elusive concepts of "title."3 As if these formal distinctions weren't challenge enough, the common law courts concocted legal fictions like "constructive possession" to turn apparent embezzlements into larcenies and vice versa.4 The result is a nightmare for prosecutors. An indictment may * Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law. B.A., 1977, Dartmouth College; J.D., 1980, Harvard Law School. 1. MODEL PENAL CODE§ 223.1 cmt.
    [Show full text]