ROWAN TIMBER SUPPLIED (SCOTLAND) LIMITED v. SCOTTISH WATER BUSINESS STREAM LIMITED [2010] ScotSC 56 (26 February 2010)

ROWAN TIMBER SUPPLIED (SCOTLAND) LIMITED v. SCOTTISH WATER BUSINESS STREAM LIMITED [2010] ScotSC 56 (26 February 2010)

Section 6(4) of the 1973 Act applies where the creditor's ignorance of the right to claim is induced by the debtor's conduct, even if that conduct is the same as that giving rise to the claim. The prescriptive period does not run until the creditor is disabused of the error. The sheriff erred in holding that only a separate act of inducement could suspend prescription.

Citation
[2010] ScotSC 56
Parties
Pursuers and Appellants: Rowan Timber Supplies (Scotland) Limited; Defenders and Respondents: Scottish Water Business Stream Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
26 February 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Sheriff's Interlocutors
Outcome
Appeal sustained; sheriff's interlocutors recalled; cause continued for amendment procedure.
Legal Topics
Prescription and Limitation, Restitution, Error Induced by Debtor, Unjustified Enrichment, Interpretation of Section 6(4) Prescription and Limitation (scotland) Act 1973
Civil Procedure Contract Law Unjust Enrichment Prescription and Limitation Restitution Error Induced by Debtor Unjustified Enrichment Interpretation of Section 6(4) Prescription and Limitation (scotland) Act 1973

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rowan Timber Supplies (Scotland) Limited

Pursuers and Appellants

Scottish Water Business Stream Limited

Defenders and Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Sheriff's Interlocutors

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 6(4) of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 applies where error is induced by the debtor's conduct in issuing invoices, thereby suspending the prescriptive period for unjust enrichment claims.
  2. 2 Whether the sheriff erred in holding that only a separate act of inducement, distinct from the conduct giving rise to the claim, can suspend prescription.

Ratio Decidendi

Section 6(4) of the 1973 Act applies where the creditor's ignorance of the right to claim is induced by the debtor's conduct, even if that conduct is the same as that giving rise to the claim. The prescriptive period does not run until the creditor is disabused of the error. The sheriff erred in holding that only a separate act of inducement could suspend prescription.

Court Disposition

Appeal sustained; sheriff's interlocutors recalled; cause continued for amendment procedure.

Orders

  • Pursuers and appellants allowed 14 days to lodge a Minute of Amendment.
  • Defenders and respondents allowed 14 days thereafter to lodge Answers.