Scotland · Civil harassment
LJBD / CASE / 006 · Checked 1 August 2026
Moulds v Reid
[2012] CSOH 13
The proposition below is deliberately narrower than a general summary. Open the linked decision, read the paragraphs in context and check whether later or higher authority changes the point.
Issue before the court
What question did this decision answer?
Could correspondence, silent calls and an alleged act near the pursuer's home potentially form one course of conduct, and could identity, awareness and the three-year limitation questions be decided without hearing evidence?
Precise proposition
At procedure roll, factual averments are assumed true unless demonstrably irrelevant. Different kinds of alleged conduct may potentially form one course of harassment, but that inference is tested on evidence. Suspicion is not necessarily the statutory awareness that starts time running. Where identity, awareness, limitation and the merits are intertwined, neither dismissal nor a separate preliminary proof may be appropriate.
This wording is this site's synthesis of the identified reasons. It is not presented as a quotation unless the judgment itself is opened and the exact words are checked.
Paragraph guide
Where the reasoning lives.
Paragraph numbers are navigation aids. Read the surrounding facts, submissions and disposal before extracting a proposition.
- [1] to [17]
The statutory claim, the competing factual averments and the parties' limitation positions.
- [18] to [43]
The parties' submissions on specification, the alleged course and the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973.
- [46]
The questions presented for decision at the procedure-roll debate.
- [47]
Different alleged acts could potentially be manifestations of the same stalking behaviour and required evidence.
- [48] to [49]
The specification of the alleged stone movement and telephone calls.
- [50] to [52]
Time bar, awareness of identity and reasonable practicability could not be resolved without evidence.
- [53] to [54]
Refusal to isolate limitation and appointment to proof before answer with all pleas standing.
Result
What happened in this case?
The court appointed the action to proof before answer with all pleas standing. It did not find that the alleged conduct occurred, amounted to harassment, defeated the limitation defence or justified damages.
Selected later treatment
How later authority used the point.
This is a recorded check, not a complete commercial citator. Each entry identifies the treatment actually found and the date of the overall note check.
Scope of check: No subsequent reported judicial treatment was located in the open-source check completed on 1 August 2026. That negative result has lower confidence than a positive citation and does not cover every subscription-only or unreported decision.
Source register
Open the material that carries the weight.
Checked 1 August 2026. A broken link does not change the decision, but it does weaken this page as a public reading aid and should be reported for correction.