Blair And Patterson Ltd v. McDermott [2006] ScotSC 43 (01 May 2006)

Blair And Patterson Ltd v. McDermott [2006] ScotSC 43 (01 May 2006)

The pursuers' pleadings did not contain relevant or specific averments supporting joint liability or contribution against the third party. The factual averments alleged sole responsibility on the part of the third party, and the alternative (esto) case was unsupported by facts. Retaining the third party would cause confusion, unnecessary expense, and possible unfairness. The Sheriff's decision to dismiss the third party from the action was correct.

Citation
[2006] ScotSC 43
Parties
Pursuer and Appellant: Blair And Patterson Ltd; Defender and Respondent: George McDermott; Third Party: First Third Party (Architects)
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
01 May 2006
Procedural Posture
Commercial Action (building Contract Dispute) / Appeal Against Interlocutor Dismissing Third Party From Action
Outcome
Appeal refused; Sheriff's interlocutor adhered to; third party dismissed from action; expenses continued.
Legal Topics
Contribution Between Joint Wrongdoers, Specification of Pleadings, Third Party Procedure, Breach of Contract, Negligence
Contract Law Construction Law Civil Procedure Contribution Between Joint Wrongdoers Specification of Pleadings Third Party Procedure Breach of Contract Negligence

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Blair And Patterson Ltd

Pursuer and Appellant

George McDermott

Defender and Respondent

First Third Party (Architects)

Third Party

Procedural Posture

Commercial Action (building Contract Dispute) / Appeal Against Interlocutor Dismissing Third Party From Action

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pleadings support a claim for contribution against the third party (architects) under section 3(2) of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1940
  2. 2 Whether the pursuers' pleadings against the third party are sufficiently specified to proceed to proof
  3. 3 Whether the third party should remain in the action

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuers' pleadings did not contain relevant or specific averments supporting joint liability or contribution against the third party. The factual averments alleged sole responsibility on the part of the third party, and the alternative (esto) case was unsupported by facts. Retaining the third party would cause confusion, unnecessary expense, and possible unfairness. The Sheriff's decision to dismiss the third party from the action was correct.

Court Disposition

Appeal refused; Sheriff's interlocutor adhered to; third party dismissed from action; expenses continued.

Orders

  • Refuses the appeal and adheres to the Sheriff's interlocutor dated 25 April 2005.
  • Continues the cause on the question of expenses to a date to be afterwards fixed.