University Court of the University of Glasgow v. Melville Dundas Ltd & Ors [2004] ScotCS 99 (23 April 2004)

University Court of the University of Glasgow v. Melville Dundas Ltd & Ors [2004] ScotCS 99 (23 April 2004)

The pursuers' averments of breach of contract by the first defenders based on clauses 160, 170, 510, and 515 of the preliminaries are irrelevant due to lack of supporting factual averments and are not admitted to probation; however, the averments based on clause 8.1.2 and clause 110 are not held to be irrelevant at this stage.

Citation
[2004] ScotCS 99
Parties
Pursuer: The University Court of the University of Glasgow; First Defender: Melville Dundas Limited; Second Defender: E. M. MacKENZIE & CO LIMITED; Third Defender: L. C. H. GENERATORS LIMITED
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
23 April 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Building Contract Dispute / Procedure Roll Debate on Relevancy
Outcome
Partial deletion of averments; proof before answer allowed against all defenders.
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Vicarious Liability, Pleading Requirements, Building Contracts
Construction Law Contract Law Breach of Contract Vicarious Liability Pleading Requirements Building 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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The University Court of the University of Glasgow

Pursuer

Melville Dundas Limited

First Defender

E. M. MacKENZIE & CO LIMITED

Second Defender

L. C. H. GENERATORS LIMITED

Third Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil Building Contract Dispute / Procedure Roll Debate on Relevancy

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuers' averments of breach of contract against the first defenders are relevant and should be admitted to probation.
  2. 2 Whether a general plea to relevancy entitles a party to seek deletion of specific averments.

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuers' averments of breach of contract by the first defenders based on clauses 160, 170, 510, and 515 of the preliminaries are irrelevant due to lack of supporting factual averments and are not admitted to probation; however, the averments based on clause 8.1.2 and clause 110 are not held to be irrelevant at this stage.

Court Disposition

Partial deletion of averments; proof before answer allowed against all defenders.

Orders

  • Averments of breach of contract by the first defenders based on clauses 160, 170, 510, and 515 of the preliminaries are deleted and not admitted to probation.
  • Proof before answer allowed against all three defenders.