Baxter Clark & Paul v Tulloch Construction Group Ltd [1999] ScotCS 254 (2 November 1999)

Baxter Clark & Paul v Tulloch Construction Group Ltd [1999] ScotCS 254 (2 November 1999)

The pursuers' pleadings disclose a relevant case for payment of fees, as the existence of an agreement to pay and the question of novation are matters of fact requiring proof. The personal bar argument is not independently relevant but may support the primary case if an agreement is established.

Citation
[1999] ScotCS 254
Parties
Pursuers: Baxter Clark & Paul; Defenders: Tulloch Construction Group Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
02 November 1999
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory (pleadings; Relevancy; Proof Before Answer)
Outcome
Proof before answer allowed; third plea in law of pursuers repelled; otherwise, parties allowed to proceed to proof.
Legal Topics
Architects' Fees, Novation, Personal Bar, Professional Services Contracts
Contract Law Construction Law Architects' Fees Novation Personal Bar Professional Services Contracts

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Baxter Clark & Paul

Pursuers

Tulloch Construction Group Limited

Defenders

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory (pleadings; Relevancy; Proof Before Answer)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defenders are liable to pay the pursuers' professional fees for architectural services rendered in connection with an abortive construction project.
  2. 2 Whether there was a novation of contract from the Foundation to the defenders.
  3. 3 Whether the defenders are personally barred from denying liability.

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuers' pleadings disclose a relevant case for payment of fees, as the existence of an agreement to pay and the question of novation are matters of fact requiring proof. The personal bar argument is not independently relevant but may support the primary case if an agreement is established.

Court Disposition

Proof before answer allowed; third plea in law of pursuers repelled; otherwise, parties allowed to proceed to proof.

Orders

  • Sustain first plea in law of defenders to the extent of repelling third plea in law of pursuers.
  • Allow proof before answer of respective averments.