Milne & Anor v William Cowie Partnership & Anor [1999] ScotCS 42 (5 February 1999)

Milne & Anor v William Cowie Partnership & Anor [1999] ScotCS 42 (5 February 1999)

The Minute of Amendment sought to introduce new contractual terms and obligations, as well as additional defects and breaches, which constituted a substantial change in the basis of the pursuers' case after the expiry of the prescriptive period. This was not a mere expansion or specification of the original case but a new case altogether. In the exercise of judicial discretion, the amendment was refused.

Citation
[1999] ScotCS 42
Parties
Pursuer: Donald Stewart Milne; Pursuer: Mrs Fiona Vivienne Milne; Defender: The William Cowie Partnership; Defender: William G Cowie
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
05 February 1999
Procedural Posture
Civil Amendment Motion / Interlocutory (motion to Amend Pleadings)
Outcome
Amendment refused
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Prescription (limitation), Architects' Professional Duties, Breach of Contract, Negligence
Contract Law Professional Negligence Civil Procedure Amendment of Pleadings Prescription (limitation) Architects' Professional Duties Breach of Contract Negligence

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Donald Stewart Milne

Pursuer

Mrs Fiona Vivienne Milne

Pursuer

The William Cowie Partnership

Defender

William G Cowie

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil Amendment Motion / Interlocutory (motion to Amend Pleadings)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Minute of Amendment introduces new obligations after expiry of the prescriptive period
  2. 2 Whether the amendment constitutes a change in the basis of the pursuers' case
  3. 3 Whether the amendment should be allowed in the exercise of judicial discretion

Ratio Decidendi

The Minute of Amendment sought to introduce new contractual terms and obligations, as well as additional defects and breaches, which constituted a substantial change in the basis of the pursuers' case after the expiry of the prescriptive period. This was not a mere expansion or specification of the original case but a new case altogether. In the exercise of judicial discretion, the amendment was refused.

Court Disposition

Amendment refused

Orders

  • Motion to amend the record in terms of the Minute of Amendment refused