WF Price Roofing Ltd v. Balfour Beatty Construction Ltd [2006] ScotSC 86 (04 August 2006)

WF Price Roofing Ltd v. Balfour Beatty Construction Ltd [2006] ScotSC 86 (04 August 2006)

The pursuers' pleadings, even as amended, did not provide sufficient averments to establish that the weather conditions constituted a 'storm' as required by the specified perils clause. The pleadings focused on site-specific factors rather than exceptional weather, and did not meet the legal standard for a storm. Therefore, the action was properly dismissed.

Citation
[2006] ScotSC 86
Parties
Pursuers and Appellants: W F Price (Roofing) Limited; Defenders and Respondents: Balfour Beatty Construction Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
04 August 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Dismissal at Sheriff Court
Outcome
Appeal refused; Sheriff's interlocutor adhered to.
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Specified Perils Clause, Definition of 'storm' in Insurance/contract Context, Relevancy and Specification of Pleadings
Contract Law Insurance Law Interpretation of Specified Perils Clause Definition of 'storm' in Insurance/contract Context Relevancy and Specification 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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

W F Price (Roofing) Limited

Pursuers and Appellants

Balfour Beatty Construction Limited

Defenders and Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Dismissal at Sheriff Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the weather conditions on the night in question constituted a 'storm' within the meaning of the specified perils clause in the sub-contract
  2. 2 Whether the pursuers' pleadings were sufficiently specific and relevant to entitle them to proof
  3. 3 Whether high wind alone can constitute a 'storm' for contractual purposes

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuers' pleadings, even as amended, did not provide sufficient averments to establish that the weather conditions constituted a 'storm' as required by the specified perils clause. The pleadings focused on site-specific factors rather than exceptional weather, and did not meet the legal standard for a storm. Therefore, the action was properly dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal refused; Sheriff's interlocutor adhered to.

Orders

  • Pursuers and appellants found liable to defenders and respondents in the expenses of the appeal.
  • Remit to the Auditor of Court to tax the account of expenses and report.