Realstone Ltd v Messrs J & E Shepherd & Ors [2008] ScotCS CSOH_31 (21 February 2008)

Realstone Ltd v Messrs J & E Shepherd & Ors [2008] ScotCS CSOH_31 (21 February 2008)

The existence of a contractual chain does not, in itself, preclude the possibility of a duty of care in delict for economic loss, but the specific contractual arrangements and facts must be examined to determine whether such a duty arises; the pleadings do not provide sufficient detail to resolve this at debate, so proof before answer is required.

Citation
[2008] ScotCS CSOH_31
Parties
Pursuer: Realstone Limited; Defender: Messrs J & E Shepherd and Others
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
21 February 2008
Procedural Posture
Professional Negligence Action / Debate on Relevancy; Interlocutory Decision
Outcome
Proof before answer allowed; both motions (to dismiss and to repel plea to relevancy) refused.
Legal Topics
Duty of Care, Economic Loss, Contractual Chains, Assumption of Responsibility, Relevancy of Pleadings
Professional Negligence Delict (tort) Contract Law Duty of Care Economic Loss Contractual Chains Assumption of Responsibility Relevancy of Pleadings

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 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Realstone Limited

Pursuer

Messrs J & E Shepherd and Others

Defender

Procedural Posture

Professional Negligence Action / Debate on Relevancy; Interlocutory Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a duty of care in delict arises between a subcontractor (defender) and the principal (pursuer) in a contractual chain for pure economic loss
  2. 2 Whether the pursuer's pleadings are relevant and sufficient to proceed to proof

Ratio Decidendi

The existence of a contractual chain does not, in itself, preclude the possibility of a duty of care in delict for economic loss, but the specific contractual arrangements and facts must be examined to determine whether such a duty arises; the pleadings do not provide sufficient detail to resolve this at debate, so proof before answer is required.

Court Disposition

Proof before answer allowed; both motions (to dismiss and to repel plea to relevancy) refused.

Orders

  • Refused defenders' motion to dismiss the action.
  • Refused pursuers' motion to repel defenders' plea to relevancy.