Rae & Anor v Broad & Ors [2000] ScotCS 295 (28 November 2000)

Rae & Anor v Broad & Ors [2000] ScotCS 295 (28 November 2000)

There are no relevant averments that the pursuers suffered actual loss from over-certification; only possible loss is interest on early payment, which is not claimed. The claim for over-certification is legally irrelevant. The claim for defective design is sufficiently averred to proceed to proof, except for one self-contradictory averment, which is deleted.

Citation
[2000] ScotCS 295
Parties
Pursuers: Alistair Gordon Rae and another; Defenders: Mick Broad and others
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
28 November 2000
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Judgment on Relevancy and Specification; Decision on Remit to Proof Before Answer
Outcome
Pursuers' averments on over-certification not remitted to probation; claim dismissed to that extent. Proof before answer allowed on defective design claim, with deletion of one averment.
Legal Topics
Architects' Duties, Over Certification, Defective Design, Damages
Professional Negligence Contract Law Architects' Duties Over Certification Defective Design Damages

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alistair Gordon Rae and another

Pursuers

Mick Broad and others

Defenders

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Judgment on Relevancy and Specification; Decision on Remit to Proof Before Answer

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether over-certification by architects gives rise to liability for the over-certified sum
  2. 2 Whether averments support a claim for damages for over-certification
  3. 3 Whether averments support a claim for damages for defective roof design

Ratio Decidendi

There are no relevant averments that the pursuers suffered actual loss from over-certification; only possible loss is interest on early payment, which is not claimed. The claim for over-certification is legally irrelevant. The claim for defective design is sufficiently averred to proceed to proof, except for one self-contradictory averment, which is deleted.

Court Disposition

Pursuers' averments on over-certification not remitted to probation; claim dismissed to that extent. Proof before answer allowed on defective design claim, with deletion of one averment.

Orders

  • Decline to remit to probation averments on over-certification
  • Delete sentence beginning 'Separatim' in Condescendence 7