John Doyle Construction Ltd v. Laing Management (Scotland) LTD [2004] ScotCS 141 (11 June 2004)

John Doyle Construction Ltd v. Laing Management (Scotland) LTD [2004] ScotCS 141 (11 June 2004)

The pursuers' pleadings, properly construed, attribute the relevant delay and disruption to events for which the defenders are responsible, and their method of quantifying loss is sufficiently specified to allow the case to proceed to proof before answer. The law permits global or modified total cost claims where causation cannot be precisely attributed, provided the pursuer eliminates from the claim all causes not the defender's responsibility or allows for apportionment if evidence supports it. The Lord Ordinary was correct to allow the case to proceed to proof before answer.

Citation
[2004] ScotCS 141
Parties
Pursuer and Respondents: John Doyle Construction Limited; Defenders and Reclaimers: Laing Management (Scotland) Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
11 June 2004
Procedural Posture
Reclaiming Motion (appeal) in Commercial Construction Contract Dispute / Appeal From Commercial Court Decision, Seeking Review of Lord Ordinary's Interlocutor on Relevancy of Pleadings
Outcome
Reclaiming motion refused; Lord Ordinary's decision affirmed.
Legal Topics
Global Claims in Construction Contracts, Causation and Apportionment of Loss, Pleading Requirements for Loss and Expense Claims, Delay and Disruption Claims, Proof Before Answer
Construction Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Global Claims in Construction Contracts Causation and Apportionment of Loss Pleading Requirements for Loss and Expense Claims Delay and Disruption Claims Proof Before Answer

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Doyle Construction Limited

Pursuer and Respondents

Laing Management (Scotland) Limited

Defenders and Reclaimers

Procedural Posture

Reclaiming Motion (appeal) in Commercial Construction Contract Dispute / Appeal From Commercial Court Decision, Seeking Review of Lord Ordinary's Interlocutor on Relevancy of Pleadings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuers' pleadings in support of a global claim for loss and expense are relevant and sufficient to proceed to proof before answer
  2. 2 Whether a global or modified total cost claim can succeed where some causes of loss are not the responsibility of the defender
  3. 3 Whether apportionment of loss is permissible where concurrent causes exist

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuers' pleadings, properly construed, attribute the relevant delay and disruption to events for which the defenders are responsible, and their method of quantifying loss is sufficiently specified to allow the case to proceed to proof before answer. The law permits global or modified total cost claims where causation cannot be precisely attributed, provided the pursuer eliminates from the claim all causes not the defender's responsibility or allows for apportionment if evidence supports it. The Lord Ordinary was correct to allow the case to proceed to proof before answer.

Court Disposition

Reclaiming motion refused; Lord Ordinary's decision affirmed.

Orders

  • Proof before answer allowed on the pursuers' averments of loss and expense.
  • Pursuers to provide further specification of overheads claim as previously ordered.