Kvaerner Construction (Regions) Ltd v Kirkpatrick & Partners Consulting Engineers Ltd & Ors [1998] ScotCS 80 (26 November 1998)

Kvaerner Construction (Regions) Ltd v Kirkpatrick & Partners Consulting Engineers Ltd & Ors [1998] ScotCS 80 (26 November 1998)

It is not universally required that a pursuer in negligence must aver and prove what their position would have been absent the negligence; in this case, the additional costs alleged to have been incurred may prima facie constitute the measure of loss, and the issue is more appropriately determined after proof of facts.

Citation
[1998] ScotCS 80
Parties
Pursuers and Respondents: Kvaerner Construction (Regions) Limited; Defenders and Reclaimers: Kirkpatrick & Partners Consulting Engineers Limited and Others
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
26 November 1998
Procedural Posture
Reclaiming Motion (appeal) / Interlocutory (pre Proof)
Outcome
Reclaiming motion refused
Legal Topics
Negligence, Damages, Measure of Loss, Implied Duty of Care
Tort Contract Negligence Damages Measure of Loss Implied Duty of Care

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kvaerner Construction (Regions) Limited

Pursuers and Respondents

Kirkpatrick & Partners Consulting Engineers Limited and Others

Defenders and Reclaimers

Procedural Posture

Reclaiming Motion (appeal) / Interlocutory (pre Proof)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer must aver and prove what its position would have been had the negligence not occurred
  2. 2 Appropriate measure of damages for negligence or breach of implied contractual duty

Ratio Decidendi

It is not universally required that a pursuer in negligence must aver and prove what their position would have been absent the negligence; in this case, the additional costs alleged to have been incurred may prima facie constitute the measure of loss, and the issue is more appropriately determined after proof of facts.

Court Disposition

Reclaiming motion refused

Orders

  • The reclaiming motion is refused.