John Doyle Construction Ltd v. Laing Management (Scotland)Ltd [2002] ScotCS 110 (18th April, 2002)

John Doyle Construction Ltd v. Laing Management (Scotland)Ltd [2002] ScotCS 110 (18th April, 2002)

The pursuers' pleadings do not support a relevant claim for extension of time for WP2011 based on delay to WP2010 after the expiry of the extension of time for WP2010, due to both lack of relevant averment and a contractual agreement precluding such reliance. The global claim for loss and expense is not relevant if it is based, even in part, on causative factors for which the defenders are not legally responsible and which cannot be separated from the overall claim. However, the court will not exclude the challenged averments from probation at this stage, as they may be relevant to the factual matrix, and the global claim will be admitted to proof before answer to allow evidence on...

Citation
[2002] ScotCS 110
Parties
Pursuer: John Doyle Construction Ltd; Defender: Laing Management (Scotland) Ltd
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Procedural Posture
Ordinary Action (construction Dispute) / Debate on Relevancy and Specification (procedure Roll)
Outcome
Averments not excluded from probation; global claim admitted to proof before answer; no summary dismissal of pursuers' claims at this stage.
Legal Topics
Global Claims, Loss and Expense, Extension of Time, Causation, Concurrent Delay, Contractual Interpretation
Construction Law Contract Law Global Claims Loss and Expense Extension of Time Causation Concurrent Delay Contractual Interpretation

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

Parties

John Doyle Construction Ltd

Pursuer

Laing Management (Scotland) Ltd

Defender

Procedural Posture

Ordinary Action (construction Dispute) / Debate on Relevancy and Specification (procedure Roll)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuers' pleadings support a relevant claim for extension of time for WP2011 based on delay to WP2010 after expiry of extension of time for WP2010
  2. 2 Whether the pursuers' global claim for loss and expense is relevant where some causative factors are not the defenders' responsibility
  3. 3 Whether a global claim can succeed if not all causative events are the legal responsibility of the defender

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuers' pleadings do not support a relevant claim for extension of time for WP2011 based on delay to WP2010 after the expiry of the extension of time for WP2010, due to both lack of relevant averment and a contractual agreement precluding such reliance. The global claim for loss and expense is not relevant if it is based, even in part, on causative factors for which the defenders are not legally responsible and which cannot be separated from the overall claim. However, the court will not exclude the challenged averments from probation at this stage, as they may be relevant to the factual matrix, and the global claim will be admitted to proof before answer to allow evidence on...

Court Disposition

Averments not excluded from probation; global claim admitted to proof before answer; no summary dismissal of pursuers' claims at this stage.

Orders

  • Pursuers' motion to amend pleadings granted.
  • Global claim for loss and expense admitted to proof before answer.