TECJET LTD AGAINST KIER CONSTRUCTION LTD [2024] ScotCS CSOH_60 (13 June 2024)

TECJET LTD AGAINST KIER CONSTRUCTION LTD [2024] ScotCS CSOH_60 (13 June 2024)

The pursuer had title to sue for its own losses as tenant, but the first assignation did not transfer property rights in the assignors' claims, only a mandate to litigate. The second assignation post-dated the raising of proceedings and could not cure the lack of title. Therefore, the claims of the assignors had prescribed and must be dismissed. The pursuer pled a relevant case in delict for its own losses, and its averments on quantum and the CDM Regulations were sufficiently relevant to proceed to further procedure.

Citation
[2024] ScotCS CSOH_60
Parties
Pursuer: Tecjet Limited; Defender: Kier Construction Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
13 June 2024
Procedural Posture
Commercial Action (delict/negligence) / Interlocutory Judgment on Relevancy and Prescription
Outcome
Action dismissed insofar as it relates to the losses of the assignors; pursuer's own claim to proceed to further procedure.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Title to Sue, Prescription, Assignation of Claims, Duty of Care, Quantum of Damages, Construction Site Liability
Delict Contract Property Civil Procedure Negligence Title to Sue Prescription Assignation of Claims +3 more

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 4 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tecjet Limited

Pursuer

Kier Construction Limited

Defender

Procedural Posture

Commercial Action (delict/negligence) / Interlocutory Judgment on Relevancy and Prescription

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer had title to sue for its own losses and as assignee of claims by Academy Music Group Limited and Live Nation (Music) UK Limited
  2. 2 Whether the assignations were effective to transfer title to the claims before prescription expired
  3. 3 Whether the claims of the assignors had prescribed

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer had title to sue for its own losses as tenant, but the first assignation did not transfer property rights in the assignors' claims, only a mandate to litigate. The second assignation post-dated the raising of proceedings and could not cure the lack of title. Therefore, the claims of the assignors had prescribed and must be dismissed. The pursuer pled a relevant case in delict for its own losses, and its averments on quantum and the CDM Regulations were sufficiently relevant to proceed to further procedure.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed insofar as it relates to the losses of the assignors; pursuer's own claim to proceed to further procedure.

Orders

  • Sustain defender's third plea-in-law and dismiss action as regards assignors' claims.
  • Put case out by order for further procedure regarding pursuer's own claim and quantum.