JA v Glasgow City Council

[1] In 1968 when he was a little boy, 3 years old, the pursuer was in a children's home in Glasgow which was managed by the defenders' predecessor. He lived there until he was sixteen and left in 1981. Since then he has grown up, had employment, married and had a family.

[3] I heard a procedure roll debate over four days from which it is clear that the law on this subject is not entirely clear. The decisions at first instance and on appeal do not always speak with one voice and two of the Scottish cases are presently subject of appeals to the House of Lords. They will not be heard until 2008.

[6] B v Murray concerned alleged bullying of girls in Nazareth House, Cardonald by the nuns in charge there. The case was pleaded in a way that clearly linked the physical abuse to the later psychological damage. The Lord Ordinary (2004 SLT 967 ) attached importance to that in refusing to allow inquiry into section 17. He allowed a preliminary proof into section 19A. This proof was heard by Lord Drummond Young (2005 SLT 982 ).

[7] In Godfrey v Quarriers the pursuer alleged abuse in a children's home between 1978 and 1984. In 2005 he sued for physical and psychological injuries. He said he had put the bad memories to the back of his mind. The injuries were not severable and he did have awareness (para. 74). The Lord Ordinary held the case to be irrelevant and no preliminary proof was allowed on section 17 or section 19A.

[9] Kelly v Gilmartin's Executrix was again a case involving abuse at school occurring over 30 years before any action was taken. A prosecution of the teacher reawakened the memories and the onset of psychological illness. The Lord Ordinary held that the claim had prescribed. The Inner House agreed. They expressed no view on Carnegie pointing out that it was a case on limitation only.