RICHARD IAN GLEN v. ANGUS COUNCIL & TAYSIDE CONTRACTS [2013] ScotSC 1 (07 January 2013)

RICHARD IAN GLEN v. ANGUS COUNCIL & TAYSIDE CONTRACTS [2013] ScotSC 1 (07 January 2013)

Angus Council, as the roads authority, failed in its duty of care by not conducting a pre-dilapidation survey or taking adequate precautions to protect the pursuer's vulnerable wall, despite being notified of its potential risk. The Council's omission was the cause of the wall's collapse and the pursuer's loss. Tayside Contracts was not at fault, having notified the Council of the risk and acted under its direction.

Citation
[2013] ScotSC 1
Parties
Pursuer: Richard Ian Glen; First Defender: Angus Council; Second Defender: Tayside Contracts
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
07 January 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Delict/negligence / Judgment After Proof Before Answer
Outcome
Decree for pursuer against first defender; second defender assoilzied (absolved).
Legal Topics
Negligence, Duty of Care, Liability for Contractors, Building Damage, Public Authority Responsibility
Tort/delict Local Government Law Construction Law Negligence Duty of Care Liability for Contractors Building Damage Public Authority Responsibility

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 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Richard Ian Glen

Pursuer

Angus Council

First Defender

Tayside Contracts

Second Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil Delict/negligence / Judgment After Proof Before Answer

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Angus Council was negligent in failing to protect the pursuer's wall during roadworks
  2. 2 Whether Tayside Contracts was at fault for the collapse of the wall
  3. 3 Causation of damage to the wall and resulting loss

Ratio Decidendi

Angus Council, as the roads authority, failed in its duty of care by not conducting a pre-dilapidation survey or taking adequate precautions to protect the pursuer's vulnerable wall, despite being notified of its potential risk. The Council's omission was the cause of the wall's collapse and the pursuer's loss. Tayside Contracts was not at fault, having notified the Council of the risk and acted under its direction.

Court Disposition

Decree for pursuer against first defender; second defender assoilzied (absolved).

Orders

  • First defender (Angus Council) to pay pursuer £17,395 plus interest from date of decree until payment.
  • Second defender (Tayside Contracts) absolved of liability.