Scottish Water Business Stream Ltd v Automatic Retailing (Scotland) Ltd [2014] ScotCS CSOH_57 (21 March 2014)

Scottish Water Business Stream Ltd v Automatic Retailing (Scotland) Ltd [2014] ScotCS CSOH_57 (21 March 2014)

On the balance of probabilities, the connection failed due to insufficient tightening of the nut, constituting a breach of duty by the installer. The evidence supports that the connection was not properly secured, and the flooding resulted from this failure. The party responsible for installation is liable for the resulting loss.

Citation
[2014] ScotCS CSOH_57
Parties
Pursuer: Scottish Water Business Stream Limited; First Defender: Automatic Retailing (Scotland) Limited (in administration); Second Defender: Arthur McKay & Co Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
21 March 2014
Procedural Posture
Reparation (damages) / Proof Before Answer on Liability
Outcome
Liability established against the party who made the connection; proof on quantum to follow.
Legal Topics
Installation of Equipment, Duty of Care, Vicarious Liability, Evidence Admissibility
Contract Law Delict (tort) Professional Negligence Installation of Equipment Duty of Care Vicarious Liability Evidence Admissibility

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Scottish Water Business Stream Limited

Pursuer

Automatic Retailing (Scotland) Limited (in administration)

First Defender

Arthur McKay & Co Limited

Second Defender

Procedural Posture

Reparation (damages) / Proof Before Answer on Liability

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Who made the connection between the hose and the water supply?
  2. 2 Was the connection properly secured?
  3. 3 Was there a breach of duty of care (contractual or delictual)?

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probabilities, the connection failed due to insufficient tightening of the nut, constituting a breach of duty by the installer. The evidence supports that the connection was not properly secured, and the flooding resulted from this failure. The party responsible for installation is liable for the resulting loss.

Court Disposition

Liability established against the party who made the connection; proof on quantum to follow.

Orders

  • Proof on quantum allowed between pursuers and first defenders if first defenders’ employees made the connection.
  • If Mr Noon made the connection, proof on quantum allowed against both first and second defenders.