Forrest (AP) v Fleming Buildings Ltd & Anor [2015] ScotCS CSOH_90 (10 July 2015)

Forrest (AP) v Fleming Buildings Ltd & Anor [2015] ScotCS CSOH_90 (10 July 2015)

The pursuer's pleadings failed to provide a relevant or sufficiently specific basis for quantifying loss as at the critical date, using inappropriate cost bases and omitting necessary deductions for sums that would have been due to complete the contract. The claim for wasted expenses was wholly unspecified and unsupported. The action was not pled relevantly or specifically for proof, and the pursuer had been given ample opportunity to amend. Accordingly, the action was dismissed.

Citation
[2015] ScotCS CSOH_90
Parties
Pursuer: Jane Forrest (AP); First Defender: Fleming Buildings Limited; Second Defender: Gibb Architects Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
10 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Commercial Action (damages and Reduction) / Debate on Relevancy and Specification; Motion for Dismissal
Outcome
Action dismissed
Legal Topics
Damages for Defective Building Works, Diminution in Value, Specification of Pleadings, Legal Aid and Caution, Reduction of Certificates, Professional Negligence
Contract Law Construction Law Civil Procedure Damages for Defective Building Works Diminution in Value Specification of Pleadings Legal Aid and Caution Reduction of Certificates +1 more

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

Parties

Jane Forrest (AP)

Pursuer

Fleming Buildings Limited

First Defender

Gibb Architects Limited

Second Defender

Procedural Posture

Commercial Action (damages and Reduction) / Debate on Relevancy and Specification; Motion for Dismissal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer's pleadings disclose a relevant and sufficiently specific case for damages against the defenders for defective building works and professional negligence
  2. 2 Whether the quantification of loss based on diminution in value is properly averred and specified
  3. 3 Whether the claim for wasted expenses against the second defenders is relevant and specified

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer's pleadings failed to provide a relevant or sufficiently specific basis for quantifying loss as at the critical date, using inappropriate cost bases and omitting necessary deductions for sums that would have been due to complete the contract. The claim for wasted expenses was wholly unspecified and unsupported. The action was not pled relevantly or specifically for proof, and the pursuer had been given ample opportunity to amend. Accordingly, the action was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed

Orders

  • Sustained the first and second pleas in law for the first defenders and the first plea in law for the second defenders
  • Dismissed the action