Milne & Anor v William Cowie Partnership & Ors [2000] ScotCS 153 (9 June 2000)

Milne & Anor v William Cowie Partnership & Ors [2000] ScotCS 153 (9 June 2000)

The proposed amendment does not introduce a wholly new obligation but merely develops or restates aspects of the contractual obligations already averred regarding drainage and sewage. The defenders had sufficient notice of the claim, and a relevant claim was timeously made. Therefore, the amendment is allowed and the plea of prescription is repelled.

Citation
[2000] ScotCS 153
Parties
Pursuer: Donald Stewart Milne and Mrs Fiona Vivienne Milne; Defender: The William Cowie Partnership and Others
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
09 June 2000
Procedural Posture
Civil / Motion to Amend Pleadings at Outer House, Court of Session
Outcome
Amendment allowed; defenders' plea of prescription repelled; question of expenses reserved.
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Prescription and Limitation, Architects' Duties, Breach of Contract, Negligence
Contract Law Professional Negligence Civil Procedure Amendment of Pleadings Prescription and Limitation Architects' 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 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Donald Stewart Milne and Mrs Fiona Vivienne Milne

Pursuer

The William Cowie Partnership and Others

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Motion to Amend Pleadings at Outer House, Court of Session

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proposed amendment introduces a new obligation extinguished by prescription under section 6 of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973
  2. 2 Whether the existing pleadings already cover the contractual obligations relating to drainage and sewage design and supervision

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed amendment does not introduce a wholly new obligation but merely develops or restates aspects of the contractual obligations already averred regarding drainage and sewage. The defenders had sufficient notice of the claim, and a relevant claim was timeously made. Therefore, the amendment is allowed and the plea of prescription is repelled.

Court Disposition

Amendment allowed; defenders' plea of prescription repelled; question of expenses reserved.

Orders

  • Closed Record to be opened up and amended in terms of Minute of Amendment no. 15 of process and Answers no. 16 of process
  • Defenders' plea-in-law directed to prescription contained in their Answers no. 16 of process is repelled