THOMAS CHALMERS AND ANOTHER AGAINST DIAGEO SCOTLAND LTD [2023] ScotCS CSOH_43 (30 June 2023)

THOMAS CHALMERS AND ANOTHER AGAINST DIAGEO SCOTLAND LTD [2023] ScotCS CSOH_43 (30 June 2023)

The pursuers' pleadings, though containing some inconsistent terminology, are sufficiently clear and specific to allow proof before answer on whether Baudoinia caused by ethanol emissions from the defenders' warehouses constitutes a nuisance resulting in actionable damage. The defenders' objections do not render the case irrelevant or lacking in specification.

Citation
[2023] ScotCS CSOH_43
Parties
Pursuers: Thomas Chalmers and another; Defenders: Diageo Scotland Ltd
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
30 June 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil (nuisance, Property Damage) / Procedure Roll Debate (pleadings Challenge)
Outcome
Proof before answer allowed; defenders found liable for expenses of the debate; pursuers found liable for expenses of the amendment process; expenses of discharge of proof made expenses in the cause.
Legal Topics
Environmental Nuisance, Fungal Contamination, Damages for Property Devaluation, Specification of Pleadings, Amendment of Pleadings
Delict Nuisance Property Law Environmental Nuisance Fungal Contamination Damages for Property Devaluation Specification of Pleadings Amendment 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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 29
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thomas Chalmers and another

Pursuers

Diageo Scotland Ltd

Defenders

Procedural Posture

Civil (nuisance, Property Damage) / Procedure Roll Debate (pleadings Challenge)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuers' pleadings are relevant and sufficiently specific to proceed to proof in a nuisance claim based on fungal contamination allegedly caused by ethanol emissions from bonded warehouses.

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuers' pleadings, though containing some inconsistent terminology, are sufficiently clear and specific to allow proof before answer on whether Baudoinia caused by ethanol emissions from the defenders' warehouses constitutes a nuisance resulting in actionable damage. The defenders' objections do not render the case irrelevant or lacking in specification.

Court Disposition

Proof before answer allowed; defenders found liable for expenses of the debate; pursuers found liable for expenses of the amendment process; expenses of discharge of proof made expenses in the cause.

Orders

  • Allow proof before answer.
  • Defenders liable to pursuers for expenses of the debate.