When is a claim time-barred? This is a question which often causes lawyers and their clients a lot of head scratching. The principles of prescription (as "time-bar" is called in Scotland) are governed by the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 (now amended by the Prescription (Scotland) Act 2018), which states that, with some notable exceptions like claims for personal injury, most civil claims must be raised within five years of the date when the loss was suffered and the party who suffered the loss was or could reasonably have been aware of their loss. If a court action is not raised within this time limit it will have been prescribed (or "time-barred"). Even after the more recent update to the law, prescription remains a thorny issue. The recent case of Pipeline Cleaning Solutions Limited v Coretrax Technology Ltd, which concentrates on the form and level of detail of written pleadings, is a recent example of the issues that can arise.
Background
Pipeline Cleaning Solutions Ltd ("Pipeline") is a Scottish company that develops and supplies technology for cleaning and maintaining offshore pipelines. Coretrax Technology Ltd ("Coretrax") is another engineering and technology firm in the same sector.
Pipeline holds an EU patent for a fluid product used for cleaning pipes and tanks in the oil industry, named "Uptake". In October 2016, Pipeline entered into a Confidentiality Agreement and Purchasing Agreement with Coretrax, in terms of which Pipeline agreed that Coretrax would have exclusive rights to purchase, market and re-sell Uptake within the UK and various other countries. Pipeline supplied Uptake to Coretrax for a period and provided it with technical information about its processing and use but claimed that in the course of 2018 Coretrax began to supply to its customers a product designed to perform the same functions as Uptake, called SwarfSweep.
Pipeline claimed that Coretrax had breached the Confidentiality Agreement and Purchasing Agreement, violated confidentiality obligations and infringed patents relating to Uptake and therefore sought damages of £10 million.
The parties' positions
Pipeline's position was that it first became aware of the loss caused by Coretrax's breaches of contract on 23 November 2018. Therefore, any court action seeking damages for Pipeline's losses as a result of the breaches ought to have been raised by 23 November 2023. The court action was served on Coretrax on 17 November 2023 and as such Pipeline's position was that the action was raised within the five-year period.
The immediate question before the court in this case was not when Pipeline ought to have been aware of their loss. Instead, Coretrax argued that when the court action was raised the action was lacking in crucial detail as it did not expressly include any claim to the effect that any breach of the Confidentiality Agreement had given rise to any loss on the part of Pipeline. Coretrax also claimed that Pipeline did not expressly identify the exact contractual terms that they alleged had been breached within the Confidentiality Agreement or Purchasing Agreement. It was not until Pipeline sought to revise its written pleadings in mid-2025 that the necessary detail was introduced. However, this, in Coretrax's view, introduced new claims that should have been included when the action was first raised. Therefore, because the necessary detail was not included within five years of 23 November 2018, the court action was time-barred and should not have been allowed to proceed.
However, Pipeline's position was that the court action included from the start the allegation that Coretrax had breached both the Purchasing Agreement and Confidentiality Agreement along with the allegation that Coretrax had infringed Pipeline's patent. Therefore, the essence of its case had always remained the same. When Pipeline revised its written pleadings in 2025 it simply expanded and refined its original action against Coretrax. It did not change the basis or substance of its case.
Decision
The court rejected Coretrax's argument that the claim was prescribed, finding that the original action gave adequate notice of the alleged breaches of the Purchasing Agreement and Confidentiality Agreement and the infringement of Pipeline's patent. Coretrax was aware from the outset of the essential nature of the case. The later changes to the written pleadings did not introduce new claims but merely provided further detail and specified the contractual terms relied upon, amounting only to refinements of the same core allegations. Therefore, as the action had been raised within the five-year prescriptive period, the claims were not time-barred. This was significant as the court action was allowed to continue and proceed to a proof (civil trial) rather than being dismissed on technical grounds.
The decision reinforces previous case law on this topic by confirming that what matters is the substance of the original court action, not form. What is critical is whether fair notice of the basis of the contractual duties that are alleged to have been breached is given. The decision is also a reminder that changes to written pleadings fairly late in the day will not necessarily trigger time-bar and that time-bar arguments will be closely scrutinised where fair notice has arguably been given.
