GUNNAR SLEMMING v. HENRY A ROSS [2010] ScotSC 140 (18 August 2010)

GUNNAR SLEMMING v. HENRY A ROSS [2010] ScotSC 140 (18 August 2010)

The pursuer's averments in support of all four heads of claim were irrelevant and/or lacking in specification, failing to give fair notice of the factual basis of the claims. In particular, damages for remedial works could not be awarded as the pursuer no longer owned the property and could not carry out the works, and there was no basis for awarding damages on behalf of the new owner or for nominal damages. The alternative heads of claim (loss of capital value, wasted expenditure, spoiled grain) were also lacking in specification. The sheriff ought to have excluded all averments from probation and dismissed the action.

Citation
[2010] ScotSC 140
Parties
Pursuer: Gunnar Slemming; Defender: Henry A Ross
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
18 August 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Contract / Appeal From Interlocutor After Debate on Relevancy and Specification
Outcome
Pursuer's appeal refused; defender's appeal allowed; action dismissed.
Legal Topics
Damages for Breach of Contract, Specification of Pleadings, Measure of Damages, Remedial Works, Loss of Capital Value, Wasted Expenditure
Contract Law Civil Procedure Damages for Breach of Contract Specification of Pleadings Measure of Damages Remedial Works Loss of Capital Value Wasted Expenditure

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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gunnar Slemming

Pursuer

Henry A Ross

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil Contract / Appeal From Interlocutor After Debate on Relevancy and Specification

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer's averments in support of his heads of claim are relevant and sufficiently specific to be remitted to proof
  2. 2 Whether damages for cost of remedial works can be awarded when the pursuer no longer owns the property and cannot carry out the works
  3. 3 Whether alternative measures of damages (loss of capital value, wasted expenditure, spoiled grain) are relevant and sufficiently specified

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer's averments in support of all four heads of claim were irrelevant and/or lacking in specification, failing to give fair notice of the factual basis of the claims. In particular, damages for remedial works could not be awarded as the pursuer no longer owned the property and could not carry out the works, and there was no basis for awarding damages on behalf of the new owner or for nominal damages. The alternative heads of claim (loss of capital value, wasted expenditure, spoiled grain) were also lacking in specification. The sheriff ought to have excluded all averments from probation and dismissed the action.

Court Disposition

Pursuer's appeal refused; defender's appeal allowed; action dismissed.

Orders

  • Interlocutor of 22 April 2009 recalled
  • First plea-in-law for defender sustained