McDonald-Grant v Sutherland & Co & C [2006] ScotCS CSOH_171 (07 November 2006)

McDonald-Grant v Sutherland & Co & C [2006] ScotCS CSOH_171 (07 November 2006)

The court held that it could not be said that the pursuer would necessarily fail on prescription, title to sue, relevancy, or specification even if all averments were proved. The issues raised were sufficiently arguable to merit a proof before answer, with all pleas standing.

Citation
[2006] ScotCS CSOH_171
Parties
Pursuer: Marilyn Louise McDonald-Grant; Defenders: Sutherland & Co & C
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
07 November 2006
Procedural Posture
Professional Negligence (civil Reparation) / Procedure Roll (preliminary Pleas)
Outcome
Proof before answer allowed; all preliminary pleas standing.
Legal Topics
Prescription and Limitation, Duty of Care, Disappointed Beneficiary, Relevancy of Pleadings, Quantum of Damages
Professional Negligence Succession Law Property Law Prescription and Limitation Duty of Care Disappointed Beneficiary Relevancy of Pleadings Quantum of Damages

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Marilyn Louise McDonald-Grant

Pursuer

Sutherland & Co & C

Defenders

Procedural Posture

Professional Negligence (civil Reparation) / Procedure Roll (preliminary Pleas)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer's claim is time-barred by prescription under the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973
  2. 2 Whether the defenders owed a duty of care to the pursuer as a potential beneficiary (title to sue)
  3. 3 Whether the pursuer's pleadings are sufficiently relevant and specific to allow proof

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that it could not be said that the pursuer would necessarily fail on prescription, title to sue, relevancy, or specification even if all averments were proved. The issues raised were sufficiently arguable to merit a proof before answer, with all pleas standing.

Court Disposition

Proof before answer allowed; all preliminary pleas standing.

Orders

  • Proof before answer granted; no dismissal of action at this stage.