Hines & Anor v King Sturge Llp [2010] ScotCS CSIH_86 (05 November 2010)

Hines & Anor v King Sturge Llp [2010] ScotCS CSIH_86 (05 November 2010)

The pleadings disclose sufficient averments of assumption of responsibility, proximity, and foreseeability to justify inquiry into whether a duty of care was owed by the property managers to the tenants regarding maintenance of the fire alarm and monitoring system. The action is not bound to fail if all averments are proved; dismissal is inappropriate.

Citation
[2010] ScotCS CSIH_86
Parties
Pursuer and Reclaimer: Martin Hines; Pursuer and Reclaimer: Wallace Commercial Limited; Defender and Respondent: King Sturge LLP
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
05 November 2010
Procedural Posture
Reclaiming Motion (appeal) / Post Dismissal, Appeal Against Interlocutor Dismissing Action
Outcome
Reclaiming motion allowed; interlocutor of dismissal recalled.
Legal Topics
Duty of Care, Assumption of Responsibility, Economic Loss, Fire Safety, Landlord and Tenant Liability
Delict Negligence Property Law Duty of Care Assumption of Responsibility Economic Loss Fire Safety Landlord and Tenant Liability

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 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Martin Hines

Pursuer and Reclaimer

Wallace Commercial Limited

Pursuer and Reclaimer

King Sturge LLP

Defender and Respondent

Procedural Posture

Reclaiming Motion (appeal) / Post Dismissal, Appeal Against Interlocutor Dismissing Action

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether property managers owe a duty of care to tenants for maintenance of fire alarm and monitoring systems
  2. 2 Whether the pleadings disclose sufficient proximity, foreseeability, and fairness to establish a duty of care
  3. 3 Whether the action should be dismissed as irrelevant if all averments are proved

Ratio Decidendi

The pleadings disclose sufficient averments of assumption of responsibility, proximity, and foreseeability to justify inquiry into whether a duty of care was owed by the property managers to the tenants regarding maintenance of the fire alarm and monitoring system. The action is not bound to fail if all averments are proved; dismissal is inappropriate.

Court Disposition

Reclaiming motion allowed; interlocutor of dismissal recalled.

Orders

  • Proof before answer allowed on the whole case
  • Respondents given leave to amend in response to the Minute of Amendment, if so advised, at the expense of the reclaimers