Royal Insurance (UK) Ltd v. Amec Construction Scotland Ltd & Ors [2005] ScotCS CSOH_162 (25 November 2005)

Royal Insurance (UK) Ltd v. Amec Construction Scotland Ltd & Ors [2005] ScotCS CSOH_162 (25 November 2005)

The pursuers' averments, though open to criticism for lack of detail and clarity, are not so irrelevant or lacking in specification as to warrant exclusion from probation. The pursuers have averred an obligation to reimburse third parties, which, if proved, could entitle them to recover the losses claimed. The matter should proceed to proof before answer.

Citation
[2005] ScotCS CSOH_162
Parties
Pursuer: Royal Insurance (UK) Limited; First Defender: Amec Construction Scotland Limited; Third Defender: Third Defenders (not named in extract)
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
25 November 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil (commercial) / Procedure Roll Debate on Relevancy and Specification
Outcome
Proof before answer allowed; defenders' pleas to relevancy and specification not sustained at this stage.
Legal Topics
Collateral Warranties, Indemnity Obligations, Recoverability of Third Party Payments, Specification of Pleadings, Transferred Loss
Contract Law Construction Law Commercial Law Collateral Warranties Indemnity Obligations Recoverability of Third Party Payments Specification of Pleadings Transferred Loss

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

Parties

Royal Insurance (UK) Limited

Pursuer

Amec Construction Scotland Limited

First Defender

Third Defenders (not named in extract)

Third Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil (commercial) / Procedure Roll Debate on Relevancy and Specification

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuers can claim for losses initially paid by third parties within their group or agents
  2. 2 Whether the pleadings are sufficiently specific and relevant to go to proof
  3. 3 Whether the obligation to reimburse third parties is adequately averred

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuers' averments, though open to criticism for lack of detail and clarity, are not so irrelevant or lacking in specification as to warrant exclusion from probation. The pursuers have averred an obligation to reimburse third parties, which, if proved, could entitle them to recover the losses claimed. The matter should proceed to proof before answer.

Court Disposition

Proof before answer allowed; defenders' pleas to relevancy and specification not sustained at this stage.

Orders

  • Allow parties a proof before answer on their whole averments on Record.