Haylock & Anor v Dow [2001] ScotCS 139 (31 May 2001)

Haylock & Anor v Dow [2001] ScotCS 139 (31 May 2001)

The pursuers' pleadings regarding the RIAS conditions are irrelevant as those terms were expressly rejected and cannot be implied. However, the limited contract as pled carries implied duties of reasonable care for the specified tasks, and the case for breach of contract and delict (negligence) is sufficiently pled to warrant inquiry. The claim based on conflict of interest fails for lack of causal connection to the losses claimed. Extraneous averments are to be deleted.

Citation
[2001] ScotCS 139
Parties
Pursuers: Ron Haylock and Another (partners in Roncal Developments); Defender: David S Dow
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
31 May 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil (property/contract/professional Negligence) / Procedure Roll Debate (pleadings Challenge)
Outcome
Partial deletion of pleadings; proof before answer allowed on remaining issues.
Legal Topics
Architect's Duties, Negligent Misrepresentation, Implied Contractual Terms, Conflict of Interest, Fiduciary Duty, Causation of Loss
Contract Law Professional Negligence Agency Law Architect's Duties Negligent Misrepresentation Implied Contractual Terms Conflict of Interest Fiduciary Duty +1 more

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ron Haylock and Another (partners in Roncal Developments)

Pursuers

David S Dow

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil (property/contract/professional Negligence) / Procedure Roll Debate (pleadings Challenge)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuers' pleadings disclose a relevant case for breach of contract against the defender architect
  2. 2 Whether the RIAS conditions of engagement formed part of the contract
  3. 3 Whether the pleadings disclose a relevant case in delict (negligence)

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuers' pleadings regarding the RIAS conditions are irrelevant as those terms were expressly rejected and cannot be implied. However, the limited contract as pled carries implied duties of reasonable care for the specified tasks, and the case for breach of contract and delict (negligence) is sufficiently pled to warrant inquiry. The claim based on conflict of interest fails for lack of causal connection to the losses claimed. Extraneous averments are to be deleted.

Court Disposition

Partial deletion of pleadings; proof before answer allowed on remaining issues.

Orders

  • Delete Article 4 of Condescendence from probation.
  • Delete words 'and 4 of' in the eighth line of Article 6 of Condescendence.