George Robert Elliot and others against Andrew Snodgrass McCandlish (Sheriff Court Civil) [2025] SCKIL 92 (16 September 2025)

George Robert Elliot and others against Andrew Snodgrass McCandlish (Sheriff Court Civil) [2025] SCKIL 92 (16 September 2025)

The court held that the pursuers' averments of negligence were insufficiently specified and excluded them from probation. The third pursuer's averments were sufficient to proceed to proof before answer on the basis of intentional or reckless nuisance, including claims for pure economic loss. Certain averments in Articles 6, 8, and 10 were excluded as irrelevant or lacking specification. The question of whether pure economic loss is recoverable in nuisance where the conduct is intentional or reckless is left for determination after proof before answer.

Citation
[2025] SCKIL 92
Parties
First Pursuer: George Robert Elliot; Second Pursuer: Donna Elliot; Third Pursuer: Harelaw Farm Weddings Limited; Defender: Andrew Snodgrass McCandlish
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
16 September 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Judgment on Relevancy and Specification; Exclusion From Probation; Proof Before Answer Fixed
Outcome
Certain averments excluded from probation; proof before answer allowed on remaining issues; proof management hearing fixed.
Legal Topics
Nuisance, Pure Economic Loss, Title and Interest to Sue, Interdict, Damages, Planning Control
Delict Property Law Civil Procedure Nuisance Pure Economic Loss Title and Interest to Sue Interdict Damages +1 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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

George Robert Elliot

First Pursuer

Donna Elliot

Second Pursuer

Harelaw Farm Weddings Limited

Third Pursuer

Andrew Snodgrass McCandlish

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Judgment on Relevancy and Specification; Exclusion From Probation; Proof Before Answer Fixed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuers' averments disclose a relevant case in nuisance for interdict and damages, including pure economic loss; Whether the third pursuer has title and interest to sue; Whether averments of negligence are sufficiently specified; Whether certain averments should be excluded from probation

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the pursuers' averments of negligence were insufficiently specified and excluded them from probation. The third pursuer's averments were sufficient to proceed to proof before answer on the basis of intentional or reckless nuisance, including claims for pure economic loss. Certain averments in Articles 6, 8, and 10 were excluded as irrelevant or lacking specification. The question of whether pure economic loss is recoverable in nuisance where the conduct is intentional or reckless is left for determination after proof before answer.

Court Disposition

Certain averments excluded from probation; proof before answer allowed on remaining issues; proof management hearing fixed.

Orders

  • Excludes from probation the pursuers' averments in Article 5 of condescendence at lines 167-170, the whole averments in Articles 6, 8, and 10 of condescendence, and specified averments in Article 11 of condescendence.
  • Allows parties a proof before answer on remaining averments.